Somerset this week: 13 June 2025
This week: a brief update on the Life Factory, an employment scam, how easy it is to speak at council meetings across Somerset, a warning letter for Taunton's Pyrland school and hello rooftop solar!
Dear readers
Today’s issue of Somerset Confidential® is free to everyone. Please subscribe to get your free weekly news summary. There’s no need to leave credit card details, just sign up and we’ll do the rest. You can do that here - just select “None” and you’ll be in.
But if you can help support us in what we do, please consider a paid subscription.
Reliable, accurate, news is not free and is not written by AI. It is written by trained and experienced journalists. And that costs money.
A paid subscription to Somerset Confidential® costs just £30 a year or 58p a week. For that we’ll give you all this:
at least 48 exclusive paid subscriber only stories a year (we’ve delivered 28 so far)
access to our full back catalogue
the chance to comment on our stories
the pleasure of supporting Somerset’s most innovative independent journalism
You can subscribe here:
Thank you
Andrew Lee - editor
Lifeless Factory saga continues
Since our last report on the goings on at the Glastonbury Life Factory project, we have asked a number of questions of Somerset Council.
For those of you who have not read about this story, the Life Factory was one of 10 projects in the Glastonbury Town Deal which attracted £23.6m of funding from Central Government.
Of all the questions we have raised with Somerset Council, perhaps the most important was: does Somerset Council accept culpability for paying out funds to the project without at any point checking to see that the Life Factory had secured match funding?
The issue we were pointing to is that many local businesses continued to supply the project in the belief that all was well, as evidenced by the fact that Somerset Council continued to pay invoices to the project up until the start of 2024.
From that point onwards, no supplier invoices have been paid. And that has left a number of local businesses in dire straits.
left a number of local businesses in dire straits
By way of response a council spokesperson told us: “Government were clear there was no requirement to secure match funding before projects started. Nationally Town Deals prioritised developing community organisations. Councils therefore worked with a large number of community delivery partners many of whom worked to secure match funding as the projects developed. The lack of match funding for the Life Factory was a concern during 2023 and was a material factor in the decision to pause funding at the beginning of 2024.”
We’ll be taking a look at the credibility of that statement in our next detailed investigative piece on the project.
In the meantime we also asked Somerset Council if the Police have been invited in to take a look at the way money was claimed from the town deal funds and if SWAP had identified any potential issues of fraud. The council spokesperson told us that as the work was ongoing they would “not be commenting at this stage.”
Not commenting for sure, but not ruling it out either.
Not part of this Trbie
The text is at first enticing. You can imagine how it would offer hope to those struggling to get back into a job or who are still trying to get their first job.
It runs as follows:
Hi, work at Trbie HR.
We noticed that your CV has generate significant interest in the job market, and we’d like to offer you an exciting online job opportunity.
We provide flexible remote work – either part-time or full-time – with comprehensive training, that is completely free.
You can work according to your own schedule, with just a 30-60-minute daily commitment.
Daily earnings range from £260 to £600, and we guarantee a monthly income of £5,400, with payments made daily.
If you’re interested in this opportunity, feel free to contact me via WhatsApp 447846429723”
That’s a verbatim message received by us but similar versions have been floating around our patch for a month now. There are lots of clues – if you look hard enough – that this is a scam. The overriding one being that if it looks too good to be true, then it is.
Oh yes, and the fact that the recipient isn’t looking for work, has no up-to-date CV and the CV is not available to the job market. Apart from those clues…
If you analyse the offer you’ll quickly see it makes no sense. The figures are unrealistic, the work undefined.
What, though, is in it for the scammers?
At first glance this is not a traditional phishing type email. This type of approach may well harvest your personal details – after all they are offering you a job.
However phishing is not necessarily the main point of the scam.
If you engage with them, it usually results in a lengthy correspondence followed by requests for money for an “enhanced service” – to get to the best jobs. You can guess what happens from there on…
One of the other clues that this might be a scam is in the opening line. “Trbie” is an obvious typo. However one you might not spot if you are skimming the text. And there is a genuine HR and recruitment business called “Tribe”. So even if you spot the typo you might still think the text is genuine.
It isn’t. We contacted Tribe and asked them about this scam. They told us: “We are aware of recent scam activity involving a group calling themselves Trbie Recruitment. We want to make it absolutely clear that Tribe Recruitment Limited has no affiliation with this organisation, or any of its activities.
Tribe Recruitment is a reputable recruitment company, committed to ethical standards and a professional service. We urge anyone contacted by Trbie Recruitment to report it to the relevant authorities and under no circumstances, offer personal or financial information.”
Sound advice.
Get stuffed
Somerset Council has a problem with words. They generally sound good and are used to promulgate a fluffy and approachable – even accountable – impression of themselves.
The Council’s Constitution tells us: “The public are encouraged to attend meetings of the Council to hear debates and are able to speak at certain meetings.” And further on in the Constitution: “The Council welcomes public involvement and participation in its public committee meetings.”
So far, so fluffy. But what does this mean in practice? Can members of the public really speak at council meetings?
Err no. Or at least not many.
Up until the May council, 30 minutes were set aside for members of the public to be allowed to speak at council meetings. Members of the public were allowed three minutes each to speak, and there was a maximum permitted of eight speakers.
If you want to understand why Somerset Council has a £100m hole in its budget for next year, the answer may be connected to the ability councillors and council officers have demonstrated with maths.
Following the May council meeting, however, public participation has been restricted even further. The maths does not work any better, but now we have just six members of the public allowed to speak, each with a maximum time of three minutes.
Mind you, if you want to speak, you still have to submit the text of what you want to say three clear days before the meeting. And it has to be ‘approved’ before you are allowed to attend and speak.
So a council that loudly proclaims it: “welcomes public involvement and participation” in its meetings – very clearly does not. Six speakers for a full council that meets only four or five times a year and has a resident population in excess of half a million is an insult to the public.
Eight speakers was, quite frankly, just as obviously inadequate.
The Council very clearly does not welcome public participation at its meetings and has moved to ensure it is minimised.
This is not a problem with the Somerset Council LibDems alone – although they are culpable in that the latest restriction was their idea. But while the Conservatives are jumping up and down in angst at the latest moves, previous administrations at Somerset County Council have not been much better when it comes to allowing public access and questions. We have written about this many times in the past.
And as we will see, LibDem councils elsewhere are more considerate of the public and of public speaking.
The final insult from this LibDem administration though is reserved for when a speaker cannot attend a full council meeting. These are usually held in Bridgwater, one of the least accessible towns in Somerset if you are coming from anywhere east of Taunton or south of it.
In the old days (well anything pre-May 2025) if a speaker could not attend then the Chair or Monitoring Officer would read out the question. At least the public would hear the question put.
Now, apparently, they can’t be bothered. Anyone wishing to know what the question was, has to wade through the Council’s user-unfriendly website to find the question that was to be put. Of course councillors may know where to look and may already know the question, but members of the public, those very members of the public that the council claim they welcome attending their meetings, may not know.
With just six speakers of three minutes each, we will now not even hear a question if a questioner is unable to attend.
If Somerset Council wanted to make it clearer that they regard members of the public asking questions as a huge inconvenience and an irritant getting in the way of the smooth running of their meetings, then we’re not sure they could do better than this.
Somerset Council is by far the biggest operating within the boundaries of the county of Somerset, but we thought it interesting to compare their approach with that of their neighbours.
North Somerset Council does similarly limit public participation to 30 minutes, but gives a maximum of five minutes per speaker. There’s no limit on the number of speakers, though of course the 30-minute total is a limiting factor.
However, the requirement to submit in advance is much more relaxed than at Somerset Council. If you want to speak at a North Somerset Council meeting you can request to do so the day before the meeting as long as the request is received before noon.
The request to speak must give an indication of the topic, but there’s no requirement to submit the complete text.
Perhaps because of this more relaxed approach, there are relatively few public speakers wanting to be heard.
There were none for the 1 April meeting, two for 18 February and just one on 14 January.
At Bath & North East Somerset Council (B&NES) things are even more generous (and this too is a LibDem council). Here they set aside a full hour for public questions and statements. Again, there is no limit on the number of speakers, just an overall time limit.
they set aside a full hour for public questions and statements
If you want to make a statement of up to three minutes, you are required to give two days’ notice to the council but if you want to ask a question of the council, this must be submitted four clear days before the council meeting, oddly the most draconian of the three councils in terms of notice periods.
The public are clearly encouraged to participate and it is reflected in the fact that the 22 May meeting had eight statements. The 20 March meeting had 20; 11 March and 25 February eight statements again.
Something that would, no doubt, make their brethren in Somerset Council shudder.
What’s in a name?
Last week we wrote about a grant given by the Treasury to what they described as the West of England. They didn’t really mean the West of England, what they actually meant was the West of England Combined Authority, shorthand for Bristol and its environs.
This week we have another name fail. It relates to the “Somerset Wide Integrated Sexual Health Service.” Now that’s a pretty specific title. Somerset is a well known entity, clearly defined over more than 1,000 years. It starts in Bristol and ends at Exmoor.
So we naturally, but naively, assume that Somerset Wide meant, well, Somerset wide. Only it turns out it doesn’t.
As a spokesperson for Somerset Council explained: “It’s a Somerset-Wide Integrated Sexual Health service for the population of Somerset Council Unitary Authority area. North Somerset and BANES have their own sexual health services commissioned by their local authorities.”
In other words it is not Somerset wide at all because at least one-third of the county is not served by the service. Why is it so hard for Government at all levels to understand that words mean something – so it is a great idea to use the right ones?
But in this particular case there is more.
Somerset Council took the decision to appoint Somerset NHS Trust on a two-year contract to provide that ill-defined sexual health service, with part of the information restricted due to issues of commercial confidentiality.
In many contract situations we see this excuse used and while we may not agree with it, we understand that private companies can ask for confidentiality and we understand the Council’s case.
However in this instance there was no competitive contract, simply one public body awarding a contract to another public body. The only funds involved are public funds.
It seems to us that the retraction of information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality is, in this instance, unjustified.
If you ask the council why a matter is restricted, they will simply refer you back to the law on restricting information. So this was the response we received: “In summary, the information is restricted under paragraph 3 of the Regulation 21(1)(A) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.”
It may be true, but it is not a reason. When we pushed, we were told a little more: “That Appendix A – PSR Process C Evaluation Report should be treated in confidence on the grounds that it contains exempt information relating to financial or business affairs of the Council and that the public interest in maintaining exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”
But even that begs some massive questions. What financial or business affairs of the Council should be concealed from the public? Once again we reiterate that this was one public body awarding a contract to another and the information withheld is the basis – the process – used to award that contract.
Instead we’ll have to share with you the things, important things, the council were prepared to share.
The contract for providing the service is awarded for two years from 1 April 2026 with an option to extend it for a further year. The value of the contract, the amount Somerset Council will pay to Somerset NHS Foundation Trust will be £4,434,382 (£2,217,191 per annum), extending to £6,651,573 if the third year is granted.
Rooftop solar after all
As we reported earlier this year, a bill sponsored by LibDem MP for Cheltenham, Max Wilkinson, that would have mandated all new build housing to be fitted with solar panels failed to pass its second reading in the House of Commons on 17 January.
At the time the Housing and Planning Minister, Matthew Pennycook, noted: “The Government are extremely sympathetic to the intention behind the Bill, namely to significantly boost the deployment of rooftop solar. That aim is clearly shared widely across the House, and for good reason.”
the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency
However he went on to add: “However, we cannot support the Bill today. That is because the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.”
This is the sort of thing that can attract cynicism. Nice noises have been made and the issue vanishes under a sea of Whitehall papers.
So it was something of a pleasant surprise last week to see the Minister making good on his promise. The announcement noted that from this autumn proposed changes in the Future Homes Standard will ensure new homes will be modern and energy efficient, cutting bills and boosting the nation’s energy security with clean, homegrown power.
Specifically it noted that new build homes will have solar panels by default.
The full details will not be known until the autumn when the Future Homes Standard is published, but the Minister (still Matthew Pennycook) confirmed that solar panels will be included, leading to their installation on the vast majority of new build homes.
This is, in our view, very good news. One of the things that Somerset Confidential® has campaigned on, is the rapid pace at which good grade agricultural land is being lost to development and to solar farms.
It makes no sense to us to risk a food crisis, simply to generate clean energy. At least not while there is no mandate to ensure homes are fitted with solar as standard. Now this appears to be on the horizon, the issue of solar farms on agricultural land is likely to be less convincing.
However, the big campaign for rooftop solar was led by CPRE the countryside charity. They had been campaigning on the issue for a couple of years with a big push ahead of Max Wilkinson’s Bill.
We asked CPRE Somerset how they reacted to the Government announcement. CPRE Somerset’s chair is Hugh Williams who told us: “Here in Somerset, we are constantly facing large applications for solar farms, which are industrialising our landscapes and taking precious farmland out of food production. It’s a complete “no brainer” to have more solar on rooftops, so we are pleased that the voices of so many CPRE members and campaigners have finally been heard by the Government. We have been shouting it from the rooftops and it has worked!
Next, we hope to see solar panels as standard on industrial roofs and warehouses – and even over large car parks. The rooftop revolution is coming and if this can take the pressure off our countryside, it’s a win-win!”
Under this proposal, it would be a functional requirement of the Building Regulations that new homes, with rare exceptions, are built with renewable electricity generation. In the vast majority of cases, we expect this would be solar panels.
Meanwhile Government estimates that each new house equipped with solar as standard will save the householder £530 a year. The £530 a year saving is based on Government’s published Home Energy Assessment tool, which allows the user to produce an estimate of the bill savings they could expect from solar, given the characteristics of their home.
Pyrland School closure notice
Pyrland School in Taunton has been issued with a Termination Warning Notice from Lucy Livings, the Department of Education’s Regional Director for the South West. This is not as serious as it sounds at first, however. Yes the school could be closed, but the notice is a standard procedure after an ‘Inadequate’ OFSTED report.
Pyrland School is part of the Richard Huish Trust. The school was criticised for tolerating poor behaviour, not having an ambitious curriculum and not adapting that curriculum to the needs of SEND pupils.
The Trust were also criticised and this was reiterated in the letter from the Regional Director: “The trust does not have an accurate understanding of the standard of education provided by the school and has not acted with enough urgency to tackle weaknesses. As a result, strategic plans and actions taken are not focused on the areas of the school which need greatest improvement.”
The trust ….. has not acted with enough urgency
As we reported in May, the school was put into “special measures” following the Ofsted report. One which the school contended was unfair and did not reflect the current state of play.
It may be a formality, but if the school is not serious in its response things can move quickly: “As Regional Director, I need to be satisfied that the trust has capacity to deliver rapid and sustainable improvement at the academy. If I am not satisfied that this can be achieved, I will consider whether to terminate the funding agreement in order to transfer the academy to an alternative academy trust.”
The school appears to be moving rapidly to head this off at the pass. A board meeting earlier this year saw the Board of Directors and the Trust Directors agree that it was in the best interests of the school to leave the Richard Huish Trust. As such, the school is in a position to voluntarily move to a new trust with the approval of the Regional Director.
With all that in place, it should be possible to revitalise the school and, most important, keep it open.
Over hasty
And finally the ever enthusiastic Gideon Amos, MO for Taunton & Wellington had to remove egg on his face after a press release U Turn last week. Bemoaning the lack of a mention for Wellington Station in the Spending Review announced on Wednesday he hurled out a Press Release decrying injustice and broken promises. The fight must go on.
Had he only double checked with the Whitehall Mandarins first. For although not big enough to single out in a Spending Review where billions were being distributed, it turns out the station funding was there in the numbers.
Cue a rather more sheepish Press Release the very next day.
Always pays to check the facts before heading into print, as many of us have learned the hard way….
If you enjoyed this article please share our website link so others can read it too:
Why not gift a subscription as a present for a friend or family member? You can do that here:
Somerset Confidential® is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thank goodness for your articles, sometimes infuriating but always interesting. So good to hear finally about solar panels on new housing.