Councillor Yvonne Tagg

13/09/2026

Hi all I didnt go to the meeting, sometimes i am not up to the collective gaslighting, I had better things to do and finnish off the account checks and do some reports.

So far I have discovered and made public that £18,500 has been taken from the parish public funds that was unbudgeted expenses, and did not comply with transparency laws/ and financial regulations and is a misuse of public funds. All this money has gone into the recreation clubs bank account to keep it afloat. I have all the documents needed to prove this.

Section 2 of the AGAR Accounting statements

There is an unexplained £69 shortfall overnight between the two financial years:
While £69 is a relatively small amount of money, Even a single penny of difference indicates that something could be wrong with the underlying paperwork.

25/26 Opening balance brought forward: £108,637.64
Minus closing balance carried forward: £82,396.62
Total Reduction (Loss): £26,241.02 so this is loss, its unbudgeted spends.
This is a repeat of the year before loss, I am concerned if this carries on we as a village will have no money left. The public needs to ask questions and demand they be open and transparent about the accounts.
Public money is being thrown into the failing charity. This cant go on, the management is failing to keep proper records of accounts that would show a loss.
I believe it needs help, it needs some new trustees that can bring in new ideas, and expert advice before its too late/
I have reported the £18,500 of unbudgeted spending that did not comply with various financial regulations which was paid into the recreation club.
The clerk has to answer for this loss and explain what it was spent on in the AGAR variances form.

No 2 on the form the precept the clerk has put £16,000 extra funding was needed for election costs and audit fees. £14,000 was put on the precept for audit fees and nothing for elections.
So that should be £14,000 extra on the precept, not £16,000
No 4 staff costs 24/25 was £14,172 and for 25/26. £28, 776 the clerk has put down was spent year 25/26
I did the sums on this but to avoid giving personal data I can only put on my sums.
Total wages for the 2 clerks of which one was employed without councillors voting and agreeing to her employment so is not a legal employer.
£25,320 is the wage cost £20,400 was put on the precept for clerks wages so £4,920 overspend on this.
So the full overspend hasn't been accounted for but as I have revealed where £18,500 has gone and the public are now aware.
The election costs was £8,300 which was a genuine spend and not budgeted for but we budgeted for the audit fee £14,000 and it was under £7,000 with the vat taken off as we get that back. So this makes up for the election costs, So slight extra cost there of just over £1,000

On the variance sheet I have trouble understanding but can give my input on what I believe to be wrong.
Box 3… total other receipts for year 24/25 £14,172
and for year 25/26 £8,366 A large drop so needs an explanation
Explanation says in July 2024 7k grant received July 2024? to explain why it was less for 25/26 I assume?
I don't remember any grant and there is no mention of a grant in the minutes which it should state who gave the grant, HOW MUCH and what it was to be used for.
So no idea why they would put a grant down as given if it wasn't? Financial Irregularity if there truly is no trace of £7,000 in the bank statements, no mention in any minutes, and no mixed-up income categories, this is a serious red flag. It could indicate that the previous year's accounts were manipulated or falsified to mask an overspend, a major bookkeeping error, or actuall fraud.
Now maybe the grant was given so all the clerk has to do is provide the minutes where this was noted and what it was for and who gave it to us.
Maybe it was given and went straight into the recreation club. Again if it was given to the parish council this should be in the minutes.
If they didn't get a grant then was this added to deceive the auditor, so he doesnt look into things in more detail.
This needs checking out. The clerk can make public the grant information and this can be put to bed. If she doesn't, then people will think the worst.
The clerk is welcome to add the information on this post to clear up this mystery.
Also another breach of financial regulations put in place to protect public money. the parish council hold the recreation clubs staff contracts. the recreation club pay the staff net wage from their bank but as the parish council runs the pay role they pay HMRC tax and insurance for the recreation clubs staff.
No reimbursement comes back from the recreation club. So this inflates the council staff bill and deflates the recreation staff costs.
Just another way of getting money out of public funds for the recreation club and breaches financial regulations.
If a parish council holds contracts, pays taxes, and covers insurance for an independent recreation club charity using public funds (the precept) without any formal agreement, reimbursement, or statutory authorization, several UK public law and charity rules are likely being violated.
The primary legal issue is that a parish council cannot use public money to subsidize an independent body unless it uses specific statutory spending powers
How much this is I don't know, they have 2 staff but whatever it is it needs looking into, and this is extra money taken to add to the already £18,500 taken for the rec club.
That's my observations and it is down to the auditor to check this out.
All has been reported and I am making it all public on a blog along with all the evidence.
Just in case you think we councillors are not qualified to understand the finances,
we have some professional minds in the council. Cllr Sue Tait is clerk to 4 parish councils and also works for our MP Charlie, Cllr Oliver wild the chair runs his own business, Cllr Alexander Sheldon MED, executive MBA, CMgr, FCMI Which is very impressive. We have a qualified clerk and even had the old clerk working for us last year.
Me, I am just an honest councillor who sees things I suspect are not right. Looks deeper into it, get the facts, research the rules, and try to protect the public funds. This is my duty as a councillor. It is the duty of all councillors.
Openness and transparency from the council is the public's right and I am doing my best to reveal the things you need to know about.
Remember when I put in my challenge in 23/24 accounts all my objections were up held. So everything I picked up on was correct. Alexander Sheldon was Chair that year and signed off the accounts.

11/09/2026

Hi Everyone, I am reporting this to you straight away just got this today. they have put in planning application for 51 dwellings for on the land west end of westgate, Planning application no 26/01493/PLF

To block or alter a major planning application for 51 houses in a village, the local planning authority will only accept objections based on "material planning considerations." They will strictly ignore personal, emotional, or financial complaints.

The most effective, valid objections for a development of this size in a village setting are categorised below:
Infrastructure & Services
School and healthcare capacity: Evidence that the local primary school, doctors' surgery, or dental practices are full and cannot support roughly 100–150 new residents.


Sewage and drainage system limits: Proof that the existing village public sewer network lacks the capacity to handle 51 additional homes.

Flood risk: Evidence that building on this specific site will cause or worsen surface water flooding or run-off elsewhere in the village

Highways & Traffic
Road safety: Showing that the proposed site entrance is dangerous, has poor visibility lines, or sits on a narrow village bend.
Traffic generation: Arguments that narrow village lanes cannot safely absorb the significant increase in daily vehicle trips.
Inadequate parking: The developer's plans do not allocate enough parking spaces per household, which will force cars to spill out onto narrow village roads.
Character & Over-development
Layout and density: The density of 51 houses is too high and entirely out of character with the surrounding village layout.
Design and appearance: The proposed building materials, heights, or architectural styles do not match the traditional local vernacular.
Loss of open space: The development destroys a village green, an important gap between properties, or a recreation area valued by the public.

Urbanist Architecture
Environment & Heritage
Impact on heritage assets: The development harms the setting or view of a nearby listed building or damages the character of a designated conservation area.

Loss of nature and habitats: Harm to local wildlife, protected species (like bats or great crested newts), ancient hedgerows, or mature trees.

Direct Impact on Neighbours
Loss of privacy: New windows or balconies directly overlooking your existing private windows or immediate garden space.
Overshadowing: Physical buildings blocking significant natural daylight or sunlight from entering your home’s main rooms.

The Planning Objection Company

Direct Comparison: What Counts vs. What is Ignored
Automatically Ignored (Invalid) Valid Planning Objections
Loss of a private view across a field Adverse impact on the public visual landscape
Devaluation of your property Overdevelopment or overcrowding of the site
Noise and dust during construction Permanent noise or light pollution from the finished site
Boundary or land ownership disputes Encroachment on public rights of way or safety hazards
The applicant's profit or bad character Conflict with policies in the council’s Local Plan
Top Tip for Your Objection
The single strongest way to frame your objection is to reference your council's Local Plan or the village Neighbourhood Plan. Look up these documents online. If you can quote a specific policy—for example, "This proposal violates Policy H2 of the Local Plan, which limits new developments in rural villages to a maximum of 10 homes"—the planning committee is legally required to take it seriously.

planning code is 26/01493/PLF
link to east riding planning

Please select the appropriate application type below i.e. Applications, Appeals or Enforcements prior to entering a keyword, reference number, postcode or single line of an address.    You will need to register prior to commenting on an application and prior to setting up to receive e-mail notific...

08/08/2026

Hi everyone sorry I havnt posted for a bit but been busy writing my report and sending it out to a few variouse departments.
I have this little gem for you £6,500 taken from the parish funds, for the recreation club. The following was on the agenda and I believe this transaction to be fraud. The whole transaction is of great concern.

Nafferton Recreation Club Annual fee for office space, document storage and hire of meeting room as required was on the agenda £6,500
The justification given
The funds were for the purpose of office space they say the parish council need for the clerk and for, storage of documents, and a years room rental for the pc meetings all in one lump sum £6,500

My grounds for concern I believe this is unlawful expenditure and unjustified transfer of funds
During the vote to transfer these funds councillors with clear overlapping institutional and pecuniary interests failed to properly declare those interests and did not leave the room and voted on the transaction.
As the recreation club is an unincorporated charity each managing trustee can be liable for depts so they all have a personal gain to get this money, and all other monies they have taken.
The decision making process lacked the necessary process required to protect the public funds from structural bias.
(As is all the money they take from the parish funds for the recreation club)

There is no evidence of a formal legally binding or market value lease agreement justifying this lump sum transfer. They blocked quotes, they did not get any quotes for this (3 needed) to guarantee best value and this expense was not accounted for in the budget. Also no start dates or finish date for this yearly cost.

They now have this down on the precept now as a yearly expense and this needs addressing.
This expenditure lacks proper statutory authority under the local government act 1972 and represents an ultra vires
Despite my sending an email telling the clerk and councillors to check the rules, and that I believe this transaction would not be legal they went ahead with it. I was not at this meeting but sent in my objections and warning to all councillors.

When I was viewing the accounts in the main recreation club hall (not the office we are supposed to have) I asked to view the office and I was refused on the grounds it has all the recreation club CCTV monitors in there and no one is allowed in only the clerk ?
I was told the office is a shared office. In fact its always been used for the recreation club, for storage and the CCTV, and the clerk for her work as clerk for the recreation club. but now they have decided to charge the parish council £115 per week for the clerk to use for her parrish council role?
So £115 a week for some space in the recreation club office that no councillor is allowed in. This is a very small office/storeroom and if its £115 for the clerk to do her work for the parish council in there then it must be the same for the recreation club for their half So they are valuing this space at £230 a week, which is extortion.
In our area you can get a one person office with bills paid for just £200 a month
And they consider their space worth £920.00 a month. And this is why we need quotes to give best value for money. They blocked quotes, just gave a price and took the money.

The charge for the room rental for the meetings is £18 more per session more than the village hall or the methodist church and these two places are actually more suitable because the acoustics are terrible at the recreation club and the public are always saying they can't hear us.

So thats £216 more than if we used one of the other options. So not value for money and quotes should have been sought but they were blocked. Also they have put down 12 meetings and its 11 meetings.
This action i beleive is fraud they are using their trustee status to funnel funds from the public funds without following proper practice £6,500 unauthorized spend which was not budgeted for

My concern is that It's now down as an annual fee on this currant years precept so They intend on taking this again this year, and this transaction I am sure is not legal
This is an unbudgeted £6,500 expenditure to rent a small, shared office inside the very same Recreation Club space that the clerk is already using.
This serves no legitimate operational purpose and is a clear mechanism to funnel an additional £6,500 of taxpayer money into the club.
If the clerk wanted an office then we have a very nice small building that no one is using and it has electricity and phone line and its free to use because it belongs to the pc. and a reminder of her employment cotract, her job was advertised work from home, her contract is work from home.

12/07/2026

In the Jan 26 minutes (photo below), the schedule of accounts for payment was approved
Nafferton recreation club Warm space room hire 24/25 *please note grant funding received*

So this is telling the public the parish council received a grant for the warm space £2,400.00.

on my inspection of the accounts, I find no grant coming in at all, but I do find on the internal auditors' request for documents the bill for this. So the clerk made a bill for this ? So it wasnt a grant after all.
I find this a very serious breach of transparency rules. It is dishonest to say the least.
so this is another £2,400 pounds given to the recreation club from public funds.

11/07/2026

I have only just managed to view the accounts, so I am late on discovering this.

the clerk has refused to give me the accounts throughout the year and I have asked her many times. £9,545.00 was taken from public funds without any vote or proper procedure being followed, and the auditor's advice being ignored.

Notice on the bottom of the precept it says rec salary 1/3 -£6,815 and insurance - £2,730.
The auditors' instructions were that they can give grants
to the recreation club but it must be paid into the recreation club as a grant, stating what it is for.
The recreation club then pays its own the bills with the grant money.
This way its open and transparent
so the public can see how much money is being given to the recreation club.
Totally ignoring the auditor's advice they decided to carry on paying the clerks wages and the insurance for the rec club from public funds, and this cost was put on the precept.
But they put on the bottom of the precept for the rec club to pay back this sum, so it looks like they are paying their share of the bills.
so £9,545 was agreed in the precept meeting to be paid back to the Parish council from the recreation club club for their share of the insurance and the hrs the clerk works for the rec club.
It was agreed at the meeting. and put on the precept at the bottom.
Now I have the accounts I see they did not pay this money back
So the rec club have managed to get funds from public money to the sum of £9,545.00. and they have ignored all procedures the auditor has advised they need to do.
So public money still paid for the bills for the recreation club, but they just did it in a different way and completely ignored the auditor's advice.
They have now escalated this situation to willful financial misconduct and a deliberate breach of the public trust.

09/07/2026

December 24 it was on the minutes and said at the meeting Cllr Sue Tait has announced she will be going on clerk training to support the clerk. I made this public. Just like that Sue Tait wants to do clerk training and p**f she is off to training. No discusion, no vote, its done. I didnt think the village should pay for her training and it was done without the councils vote. Well looking in the accounts i see two bank stubs for 144.00 for training but Sue Tait paid the check back so i guess my making it public made her do the right thing. The clerk has had Ann Tyler to suport her. Sue tait has since got 2 clerk jobs and even a job working for our MP Charlie Dewhurst but at least she paid for the course herself, and so she should. A saving for the village so happy with that

09/07/2026

I have managed to view the accounts, and the clerk had her body guard with her Cllr Peter Ryle
I find this very concerning as it seems to imply that I am a threat of some kind to her? Just because I challenged her and the cllrs at the meeting on the accounts.

There is a lot to reveal now I have the full accounts so it will be done step by step. The AGAR was in the accounts which it has to be, but there was also a lot of documents missing that should have been there for public inspection.
So we had the meeting on The AGAR and the council said yes to the box where it said we took appropriate action on all matters raised by the internal and external audit. I told them they hadn't done this so it should be no. Cllr Nigel Sawyer said it takes time, I said you have had a year, all the recommendations should have been implemented in these accounts.

I advised to put no, and explain on a separate piece of paper which is what it says to do.
They all voted Yes its been done knowing this was not true. I find this astonishing to lie on a very important government document.
They also said yes to we provided proper opportunity during the year for the exercise of electors rights in accordance with the requirements of the accounts and audit regulations.
I did make a big deal at the meeting that I had requested over and over for the accounts and the clerk would not provide me copies and copies I can print off.
They all said I get these with the monthly email trying to make me look stupid.
Its easy to prove I didn't get them I have all the emails and also if the clerk has given me the accounts she will have copies of the emails sent to me.
So another tick yes when it should be no and knowingly giving the wrong answer
Also its a no for we have assured ourselves that there are no matters of actual or potential non-compliance with laws regulations and proper practices etc….but they said yes, knowing this is the wrong answer.
I was shocked to see that the clerk had altered the AGAR and put her initial on it. She changed the one about the electors rights, so guess she thought about this one as I can prove she has not sent me the accounts I requested all year. Thats a guess, why she did it, she only knows the reason why. But she should have admitted at the meeting that she has not given me the accounts when i asked for them.
Whats in the minutes and agenda is not the full accounts.
I told the clerk she has no authority at all to change the AGAR after its been agreed at a meeting, she said she had spoken to the staff committee and they said it was ok, I told her they have no authority either. The only way it can be altered is for it to go back to a meeting.
Why did I know this information and she didn't?
I will say I don't think she knowingly did this, but I will say she should have known, she is the clerk, it's her job and I keep getting told she is good at it.

So the AGAR has been filled in wrong and to knowing doing this can have serious consequences and the clerk with no authority to do so has changed one of the answers and the Chair Cllr Oliver Wild signed this document with the clerk.
This is incompetence at its finest, and this is going to cost the village money in charges from the auditor.
But it did see in papers I read that the auditor can bill the people that have knowingly done things wrong personally. Now that would be a good outcome.
I don't see why the village should pay for their arrogance and refusal to do things the correct way. Cllrs at the meeting were Cllr Nigel Sawyer, Cllr Oliver Wild, Cllr Margerett Buckton, and Bully boy Cllr Mike Battams and myself. I did not give the wrong answers so I am in the clear.

Now I would like to make this clear. It is their incompetence and arrogance in knowingly filling in the form that will cause extra costs and it could cause a public inquiry
It is my duty to report and it says in the rules if a Cllr knows about wrong doings on procedures and accounts it is their duty to report it to the auditor and if they fail to do so there can be serious repercussions.
The same was with the last audit challenge, but they made it out I was a trouble maker and they did nothing wrong etc… oh and they said iit was going to cost £14,000 and that cost was my fault.
Any costs is not down to me, its down to the council and no one can say I didn't try to stop them from filling in the form knowingly wrong.
The Auditor said she had not given the council a cost so that £14,000 that they were telling everyone i had cost the village was a sum they came up with all by themselves.

It cost less than half that and there were 2 challenges.
They are taking near on £20,000 a year from the public funds to support the recreation club. The way they are doing it is not correct procedure, they have been told they can't do this, yet they have done the same again on these accounts.
The clerk Suzanne Taylor started with us before this accounting year in question and she has had the help of the old clerk Ann Tyler something that never went through a meeting. It was decided by the little them that rules, and I knew nothing about this, until it was put on the agenda 100 hrs Ann Tyler.
This is a staff member no one voted for because she had retired so she was no longer a member of staff.
so proper procedure was not implemented on this decision. It was agreed to keep her on to do that years accounts nothing more.
See how them in charge do things without following proper procedure. I have no idea if she is working this current year.

23/06/2026

see link for the auditor reports. cost of the case was £6,522.0 plus vat. Remember Cllr Battams told everyone I cost the village £14,000 which was another of his bully boy lies. we get vat back so thats how much it cost. we put £14,000 away for this so we should have 7,478 in reserves for the auditor so why they have added another £7,000 on this years precept I have no idea ? so with this we should have in reserves £14, 478.00 they did not need to put the £7,000 on the precept its just added to the public cost for no reason.

22/06/2026

Meeting of Tuesday 9th June. Link for blog and Audio. The incompitance of the councillors at this meeting is astonishing, and that includes the clerk. They voted to lie on the AGAR form and Nigel Sawyer admitted they had not done what the auitor told them to do but still voted to tick the yes box saying they had done it. Cllrs presant were Cllr Oliver Wild, Cllr bully boy battams, Cllr Nigel sawyer, and Cllr buckton. and me Cllr Yvonne Tagg.
No doupt Cllr Battams will have photo shot this to send to standards as a compaint because I have called him bully boy, I have enough evidance that he is, he also has egg on his face from the investigation him and Cllr sue Tait had on me. this link is in the blog if you havnt seen it. I have just managed to get the finances and the ristriction on printing seems to have been taken off. maybe to make me look like I wasnt telling the truth but as always I have evidance these ristrictions were in place as I photo shot the page with ristriction clearly at the top. I will update when I go through the accounts but quick glance they did not pay the £9,545 back to the PC account. see link

25/05/2026

Councillor Sue Tait and Cllr Mike Battams put in a complaint about me and now end up with egg on their faces. see blog