Somerset this week: 14 March 2025

This week we have a comedic lack of responsibility for sewage capacity, flood prevention but a revealing answer on planning enforcement, and how are councils responding to a Nature Emergency?

Dear readers

Today’s news update is for all our readers. We do believe in trying to provide a free news service. BUT….. (there’s always a but) the only way we can offer you a free news service, is by providing a paid-for service alongside it. Without the paid-for bit, the free bit could not exist.

So can we tempt you?

To sign up for a paid membership for a year would cost you £30 - that’s 58p a week. What will we give you for that?

• To start with at least 48 extra articles, investigative or analytical pieces

• Access to our entire back catalogue. It is a pretty large back catalogue these days and you can find material by using the search function in substack.

• The ability to comment on our articles

• The pleasure of supporting one of Somerset’s last and most innovative independent news outlets

If that sounds interesting and a good deal, please do join us. You can sign up here:

Thank you

Andrew Lee - editor

---

Unenforceable

Most planning applications come with conditions. As a minimum, once granted, work must be started within three years. But all sorts of other conditions are also common. Being good neighbours to existing properties during construction, providing access routes to the site, providing financial contributions to local infrastucture and providing sustainable transport links are just some examples.

And of course we also expect housing to be built in line with the plans. So the right number of houses, the correct width of access roads to ensure emergency vehicles can get through. Then there’s the type of building materials used, the height of the housing units. All should be exactly as the approved plans.

Protecting the public from all of this and ensuring there are no short cuts in the way new housing is built and presented, relies on planning enforcement. It is one thing to approve a lot of planning applications, but just as important to ensure that the details of the plans are adhered to and planning conditions enforced.

After all sometimes a developer or individual may simply start construction on land without any planning permission at all.

Enforcement though does appear to be a problem for Somerset Council. At least according to figures produced in the Quarterly Report on Planning published on 9 January.

The appendices show that for each of the five quarters for which figures are presented there were between 850 and 1,009 enforcement cases outstanding.

On average, Somerset Council appears to resolve anything from 194 to 315 cases per quarter. But within those figures will be many cases where: “no further investigation because we identify that planning permission already exists for the work, that planning permission was not required or that enforcement action is not proportionate”.

Once those are dealt with there will be the main body of difficult or controversial enforcement cases which persist each quarter unresolved. Presumably these are the cases that are keeping the number of unresolved cases at such a high level.

The one table that the Quarterly Report does not give though, is for the number of council officers working on enforcement at any one time.

Cllr Diogo Rodrigues thought that was worth knowing. More specifically, as he is a councillor for Bridgwater East & Bawdrip, he wanted to know how many officers were working on cases in Area North.

The answer was, to put it mildly, revealing. Just 0.8 (full-time equivalent) of an officer working on cases in Area North (the area in which Bridgwater sits). No wonder they had a backlog of 183 cases.

You have to feel for the officer, or fractions of various officers working on this. Yes, the council is under incredible financial stress and considering yet more cuts to the budget. But this looks like an extremely large workload for a very small pool of officers.

It also raises questions about the importance of planning enforcement. Obviously Somerset Council has to prioritise planning application performance because there are national targets to be met. Plus there is intense government pressure to approve ever more houses.

Surprisingly perhaps, there are no government targets for planning enforcement performance. There are rules about the timeframe in which enforcement action can be taken set out in Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but that’s all. In fact the rules are primarily there to say if enforcement doesn’t happen within a time frame - it can’t happen at all.

Meanwhile communities and individuals are getting increasingly concerned about the lack of enforcement action taken by Somerset Council. However given their financial situation and the lack of staff engaged in enforcement, it is perhaps understandable that under Somerset Council’s current predicament, things are the way they are.

Who knows?

Undertone turned water campaigner, Feargal Sharkey, may have wondered if he was alone in calling for the nationalisation of water companies. The arrival of a Labour government that says it's going to control water companies without nationalising them seemed to cement the fact. The LibDems too have advocated for even greater controls still on the water companies without actually calling for nationalisation.

However, as of last week one MP is now putting forward a Private Member’s Bill proposing alternative ownership models for the water industry. Norwich South MP, Clive Lewis, is not a lone voice either; a number of MPs have indicated they support his move.

A more recent and local convert to the cause is Taunton & Wellington MP, Gideon Amos. Whilst accepting that Wessex Water is one of the better run water companies, he was still moved to suggest recently that for all water companies: “We want to see them turned into public interest companies with duties to invest in cleaning up our waterways instead of sending cash into their own pockets.”

Maybe not nationalisation, but certainly exploring other ownership models along the lines Clive Lewis is proposing.

It was against this background that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Emma Hardy visited the site of an extended sewage treatment facility just outside Bath on Monday. The Saltford Treatment Plant is getting a £35m investment which Wessex Water say will see an increase of 40% in capacity.

a £35m investment which ….. will see an increase of 40% in capacity

It may merit a ministerial visit but the investment is being made by Wessex Water, not the Government. Still Emma Hardy highlighted the project as a prime example of how £104bn in private sector investment is improving water infrastructure.

Admittedly the £35m at Saltford is a small drop in a £104bn pond. But what does it actually mean for Bath and the surrounding area?

The Wessex Water summary is as follows: “By boosting the capacity of the water recycling centre, Wessex Water will be able to treat more than 800 litres of wastewater per second – around a 40 per cent increase on current flows – to help meet increasing demands.”

How the new Saltford plant will look

They are good numbers, but beyond a statement of the obvious that the completed works will increase capacity, lacking in context. How will that increase in capacity match the growing need for greater capacity as more and more houses are built?

As those living a little further south on the Somerset Levels know all too well, housing is one of the main drivers of phosphate pollution.

Extending sewage treatment plants enables better water treatment. But is one enhanced plant at Saltford enough to cope with a growing city like Bath? We wanted to know more.

Specifically we asked roughly how many extra houses could the enhanced facility be expected to cope with?

An obvious question, but one which surprisingly, no-one knows the answer to. Or at least wants to admit to knowing.

We started by contacting DEFRA to see if they had a handle on the numbers. They passed us to Wessex Water. After all you might imagine Government would have an overview as they are driving the increase in housebuilding.

When we asked Wessex Water, they patiently explained to us that they could not tell us. It’s not a question of Wessex Water not knowing how much housing capacity that adds they said, because it is not a question Wessex Water could be expected to answer. Why? Because they don’t build houses.

Which is fair enough. But then we could hardly ask Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) Council how much extra capacity it will add or even how much sewage capacity is needed for all the extra homes they have granted planning permission to build. Because BANES do not build sewage plants.

So we are stuck in a merry-go-round where the extra capacity may or may not be adequate because nobody seems to own the problem.

Wessex Water did say that: “The decisions around increasing the capacity of the Saltford site will have been taken using a number of different factors, including existing and projected population growth as calculated by a number of different bodies…”

That’s fair enough from the point of view of a water company.

Yet while everybody seems to know when the capacity of a sewage facility is inadequate, when a new one is built it seems no one body appears to have overall responsibility for defining its capacity for accommodating new house building. In other words ensuring that what is built is adequate and future proofed.

Not Wessex Water, not BANES nor, apparently, the visiting minister either.

But one thing you can be sure of. If in the future it turns out that the new facility is insufficient, if sewage spills increase or housebuilding has to be curbed, all hell will break loose and everyone will be looking for one body to point a finger at.

Maybe that’s why there’s no one body owning up to knowing what the numbers are?

In Woodland we Trust

Councils these days are getting good at declaring emergencies. Declarations are relatively easy; doing something meaningful about them a little trickier.

Somerset Council has declared a climate emergency (what council hasn’t?) and a nature emergency too. But both have tended to be subsumed by the all-embracing and more immediate financial emergency.

Somerset Council may have plans to be carbon neutral by 2030, but since the formation of the new council there has been a resounding silence on how it is doing. How far along the road to carbon neutrality has it travelled and how much further is there to go?

The Woodland Trust, by virtue of what it is and what it does, is most interested in the Nature Emergency. They tell us that nature is integral to culture, to a healthy society, and to a thriving and sustainable economy.

Yet nature is in crisis. British wildlife species have declined by an average of 19% since 1970 and nearly one in six are at risk of extinction. Urgent action is needed for nature.

Readers may recall the dramatic conclusions of the State of Nature Report published in 2016 which Sir David Attenborough promoted (and wrote the forward to). This highlighted the rapid decline in nature over the previous 50 years. The report revealed 56% of species had declined in numbers between 1970 and 2013.

56% of species had declined in numbers between 1970 and 2013

Of particular resonance for Somerset, the report found that the European eel population has experienced a drastic decline, with a 90-95% reduction since the 1980s.

The seriousness of the decline in species is still at the forefront of Government thinking. Minister Emma Hardy recently noted: “Britain is currently one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. This government is committed to protecting bees from toxic neonicotinoid pesticides, while working with our farmers to find new ways to protect crops and support a profitable farming sector.”

Councils as landowners and planners can play a key part in reversing the decline in nature. While a growing number of local authorities are declaring Nature Emergencies, this is in itself not much use. To demonstrate commitment to meaningful action for nature’s recovery, there is a need to:

1. Develop an evidence-based Nature Emergency action plan.

2. Commit to ensure nature’s recovery is embedded into plans and policies.

3. Ensure plans aim to manage 30% of council land for nature recovery by 2030.

This is not going so well. Only 100 (25%) of 395 tier one and two councils (county, district or unitary) have even declared a nature emergency. No doubt the financial crisis in local government is not helping.

Only 13 councils have gone on to also develop evidence-based emergency plans and ensure nature recovery is embedded into policies. And just five councils have done all four actions.

Somerset though is not among the laggards. Somerset Council is one of the 13 to have declared an emergency, put together an evidence-based plan and ensured that nature recovery is embedded in policy. As to the 30 by 30 commitment, there’s some good news here too. Although not yet formally adopted, a council spokesperson confirmed: “Somerset Council is committed to achieving the 30x30 initiative across the county. This commitment is embedded within the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) for Somerset, which the Council heads up as the responsible local authority. The LNRS is set to be formally adopted later this year.

For Council-owned land, the goal of dedicating 30% of it to nature recovery is outlined in the draft Biodiversity Strategic Approach and Action Plan (2024-2030). This plan, currently awaiting formal adoption, underscores the Council’s dedication to enhancing biodiversity and supporting nature recovery efforts. Once formally adopted, we will be able to officially implement the 30x30 plan for our land.”

Bath & North East Somerset (BANES) declared a Nature Emergency is 2020 as did North Somerset. Somerset Council followed in 2022. Both BANES and Somerset Councils have also gone on to take steps one and two from the action plan highlighted previously here, but neither have made the crucial commitment to manage 30% of their land for nature recovery by 2030.

Councillor Sarah Warren, Deputy Leader and cabinet member for Climate and Sustainable Travel for BANES told Somerset Confidential: “Although we do not have a stand-alone policy to state our commitment to managing 30% of our estate for nature recovery, this commitment is implicit in our Ecological Emergency Action Plan and is demonstrated through our Biodiversity Net Gain Pathfinder programme. It is also demonstrated in our green infrastructure projects including Bathscape, Somer Valley Rediscovered, Chew Valley Reconnected and WaterSpace Connected. We have secured significant investment to improve the biodiversity of our sites and to support town and parish councils and landowners to deliver nature recovery on their own sites. The Woodland Trust has indicated to us during our discussions with them that the methodology used in their assessments of local authorities has led to some inaccuracies.”

North Somerset are, according to the Woodland Trust, the laggards here. The Woodland Trust state that while they have got as far as producing an evidence-based plan, as yet there is nothing further.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that North Somerset do not recognise that picture. Their spokesperson explained: “North Somerset is proud to be the first region in the country to have published a Local Nature Recovery Strategy, positioning us as a leader in this area. The priorities identified for biodiversity are clearly highlighted in this document. We are currently looking at producing the data to reflect how we are progressing towards the target and will share this when available.”

As to the 30 by 30 target, they were insistent that the Woodland Trust had it wrong. They told us: “North Somerset Council is fully committed to managing 30% of land for biodiversity recovery by 2030, as outlined in our Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy. This gives the council an additional five years to meet this important objective.”

Another year of flood management

Whilst the steep rise in council tax for Somerset Council residents may not be entirely welcome, one element of it that rarely attracts criticism is the money paid to the Somerset Rivers Authority (SRA). This is the body set up in the aftermath of the 2012-2014 floods that co-ordinates river and water management across the catchment of the rivers Tone and Parrett.

The work of the SRA is paid for via a separate precept within your council tax and you can track it from your council tax leaflet that came through the post with the council tax demand.

For 2025/26 that will translate into a £3.2m programme of flood prevention works include dredging, river maintenance and bank-raising.

The largest portion of the budget is, as you might expect, to work on the river channel south of Burrowbridge, the point where the River Parrett and River Tone meet. Here, £650,000 of the budget is set aside for maintenance dredging and silt monitoring along this three-mile stretch of the River Parrett.

This was the area that had not been dredged by the Environment Agency (EA) before the floods of 2012-2014 and was believed to be one of the root causes. The SRA now routinely carry out this work which in their own words: “reduces flood risks for around 1,300 homes and businesses, and around 7,500 hectares of land, including 5.3 miles (8.5km) of A-roads (A372 Bridgwater-Westonzoyland, A372 Langport, A361 Othery-Athelney, A378 Wrantage), 30 miles (48km) of minor roads and 5 miles (8km) of main line rail network.”

It is a shame that the EA did not see it in the same terms when they stopped this work in the 2000s. What the SRA accept, and the EA did not, is that: “dredging has been done to increase and then maintain the Parrett’s capacity. Because it allows more water to be conveyed, dredging helps to delay the running of spillways and the filling up of moors.”

The SRA will use water injection dredging which relies on the Parrett’s own tidal power to take away excess silt as it is loosened by high power hoses directed at silt and sediment build-ups.

The next major chunk of work is £540,000 allocated to river maintenance across the region. This includes the rivers Axe, Brue, Parrett and Tone catchments. This is more controversial as it is work that the EA used to do and is no longer carrying out. Which means the SRA are finding the money to carry out the work. Which is hitting Somerset taxpayers twice. They are paying income tax for the EA not to do the work, and a precept on their council tax for the SRA to do it instead.

it is work that the EA used to do and is no longer carrying out

The works can be anything from de-silting, cutting weeds from the banks, extracting excessive weed from the water and generally maintaining river banks.

A further £500,000 will be spent on maintaining the River Sowy and King’s Sedgemoor Drain. This is the channel that can take excess water from just below Langport and release it into the Parrett estuary at Dunball, thereby reducing water flows in the direction of Bridgwater in times of flooding.

The work this summer will be to raise 1.12 miles (1.8km) of the left bank of King's Sedgemoor Drain which will increase the carrying capacity of the channel.

Of the budget, £324,000 will be spent on land management and natural flood management in the upper reaches of the Yeo and Parrett. This is part of the Hills to Levels project. It can be as simple as planting more trees, maintaining ditches and bunds, or managing weeds.

The idea is to manage waterflows naturally and to reduce run-off from fields in times of heavy rainfall. The Hills to Levels project is an award-winning effort and the SRA are keen to expand its work.

The final large project in this year’s budget is £300,000 allocated to gully cleaning across the county. Gullies in places most at risk of flooding across Somerset are currently cleansed once a year by Somerset Council’s Highways Department. Extra SRA funding would mean that around 25,000 gullies could be emptied twice a year.

Like so much of the other work by the SRA, this is aimed at managing flood risk. The goal is to help keep roads open in places highly susceptible to flooding.

There are a number of other grants and works in the budget for 2025/26, but the projects mentioned here represent the main works the SRA will undertake. As Cllr Mike Stanton, Chair of SRA, puts it: “Every part of the SRA’s programme of works for 2025-26 has been designed to reduce the risks and effects of flooding for people, properties and businesses across Somerset.”

And another one….

Another month and we have yet another CQC report criticising the leadership in a Somerset care home. This time the inspectors visited Netherclay House at Bishops Hull, Taunton. Overall they graded the care home as “Requires Improvement” primarily because it was assessed as Requires Improvement for being “well led”. However, the facility was also rated “Requires Improvement” for being safe.

In the areas of being Effective, Caring and Responsive, Netherclay was rated Good.

The report published last week, related to an inspection that took place in November 2024. Netherclay is a residential home which also provides live-in flats in the grounds. They look after up to 41 residents and are registered to look after people with dementia, sensory impairment and physical disability.

Inspectors noted that during the visit they found that residents did not always receive safe care and treatment and “risks were not always managed safely, due to failings in the management and oversight of the service.”

In addition they noted: “The registered manager did not have a clear system to identify their own priorities. An action plan, devised with the provider, was not meaningful to the registered manager. This meant actions were not always completed, followed through and were not effectively communicated with staff. Staff said there was poor communication, and they were not always kept informed about changes at the home.”

There were also concerns expressed that: “The registered manager had 3 recent meetings with the district nursing team. There were no clear actions in response to their concerns or to mitigate further risks.”

There were some positive comments, and the observation that: “Resident and staff surveys had been completed and evaluated and were positive overall….” will offer encouragement.

That said, the inspectors did acknowledge a positive attitude from the manager and staff. They reported that: “The registered manager and providers were responsive to our findings and started to make improvements during the assessment. However, the improvements being made needed to become embedded and sustained.”

We look forward to learning lessons from the feedback and being re-inspected soon….

When we contacted the home they were taking the inspection positively. A spokesperson for Netherclay explained: “Although the service failings that the report highlights are disappointing, we welcome the findings in CQC’s recent inspection. The wellbeing of our residents is our primary focus and we are working with our CQC inspector and our colleagues in Adult Social Care to implement an agreed improvement plan. We look forward to learning lessons from the feedback and being re-inspected soon.”

---

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.