Somerset this week: 18 July 2025

This week: the salaries of s151 officers at one council, board meetings at Glastonbury, the FoI team who haven't read the FoI, an MP takes up our story, housebuilders let off and neighbourhood plans

Dear readers

We are returned from our break refreshed and ready to swing into action! And coincidentally the arrival of Somerset Council’s accounts has given us much to get our teeth into.

As ever please do subscribe to get your free weekly news summary delivered to your inbox. You can subscribe without leaving 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.

If you can help support us to do more of what we do, please consider a paid subscription. A paid subscription costs just £30 or 58p a week. For that we’ll give you all this:

• at least 48 exclusive paid subscriber only stories a year

• access to our full back catalogue

• the chance to comment on our stories

• the pleasure of supporting Somerset’s most innovative independent journalism project

You can subscribe here:

Thank you

Andrew Lee - editor

---

A396 Coach Crash

Yesterday at around 3pm a coach carrying children from Minehead Middle School crashed while returning from a school trip to Exmoor Zoo. The incident took place north east of Wheddon Cross near the junction with Ashwell Lane and Steart Lane on the A396. The vehicle left the road, overturned and came to rest about 20 feet (six metres) from the roadway, down a steep slope.

Most passengers were taken off the coach but Devon and Somerset Fire & Rescue Service had to work to free a number of passengers trapped in the coach.

Sadly one child died in the incident and two others had to be airlifted to Bristol Royal Hospital for Children. Four other children and three adults remain in hospital in Somerset.

According to Avon and Somerset Police the coach was carrying between 60 and 70 pupils and staff. A major incident was declared with Police, the Fire Service and Ambulance teams all in attendance.

Those passengers who were unharmed or with minor injuries were taken to a nearby rest centre set up by the aptly named Rest and Be Thankful pub at Wheddon Cross.

Chief Superintendent Mark Edgington also added: "On behalf of the emergency services I would like to thank the 24 volunteers from Exmoor Search and Rescue who carried out first aid triage at the rest centre and have rope and search skills.”

The coach was one of two supplied by Ridlers Coaches carrying children on a day trip to the zoo. The other coach returned to the school without incident. Ridlers are a Dulverton based company with a long pedigree. The coach driver is in hospital and is said to be in a stable condition.

A statement from The Multi Academy Trust which runs the school ran: “It is with deep sadness and heartbreak that we confirm that a pupil from Minehead Middle School has tragically died following a road traffic incident earlier today involving a coach carrying pupils and staff returning from an educational visit.

A number of other people have been taken to hospital, some of them with serious injuries. This includes two children who were taken to hospital by air ambulance.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends, and all those affected by this terrible accident. Our entire school community are devastated by this news, and we will do everything we can to support everyone affected.”

Police have confirmed that a formal investigation will now take place and have asked any witnesses to the incident to contact them via 101.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all of the families and friends of the staff and children caught up in the incident.

Morton’s Fork*

Somerset Council have published their accounts on time! This in itself is something worth celebrating. This might indicate some light at the end of the tunnel of chaos that has reigned since the four districts and county merged into one new Somerset Council. Or it could do were it not for the figures the accounts contain.

The council is required to have a section 151 (s151) officer, that’s the equivalent of a finance director in a commercial business. During the year to 31 March 2025 the council had two s151 officers. Jason Vaughan who was s151 officer from the launch of the new council on 1 April 2023 and Maria G. Christofi who served as interim s151 officer between August and March 2025.

Jason Vaughan was paid £64,218 for five months work suggesting an annualised salary of £154k. However he was also paid £77,490 as compensation for loss of office. And a further £12,533 pension contribution giving a total of….£154k. So in the end the equivalent of a full year’s salary for 5 month’s in post.

Maria Christofi was paid £250,905 for the eight months she served the council. That works out at an annual equivalent of £376,905. Which is more than one and a half times the salary of the chief executive.

That works out at an annual equivalent of £376,905

John Morton, later Cardinal Morton

Where then is the fork? Well if the council’s finances were in such a mess that it justified paying such a vast sum to an interim s151 officer, why was the permanent s151 officer paid off in full? If on the other hand the previous s151 officer did a great job and earned his pay out, then why was it necessary for the council to pay over the odds for an interim s151 officer?

Even so, £377k seemed to us an astonishing sum for a council to pay out when it is struggling financially. So much so that it was making large numbers of staff redundant. We asked the council about this.

A spokesperson for Somerset Council explained: “As we set out at the time of recruitment, which went through our democratic processes, this appointment provided Somerset Council with significant financial and business expertise gained from being a Chief Finance Officer at other councils while also providing independent and experienced support to the Council’s finance function as it went through a period of extensive organisational change. The remuneration was benchmarked with regard to recruiting an experienced, highly qualified and capable officer who was undertaking the role during a financial emergency, and was recruited via an agency company: IRG Advisors LLP T/A Odgers Berndtston.”

The latter is important. At least the s151 officer was not being paid through her own consultancy company. Something which HMRC have been known to take exception to.

However Maria Christofi has now moved on and as a matter of law the council must have a s151 officer.

The council attempted to recruit a full time s151 officer but despite running the exercise, failed to find a satisfactory candidate. Perhaps it is not surprising that given the state of the council’s finances, they are unable to find a good enough finance professional willing to pin their colours to Somerset Council’s mast.

However that in turn leads to other problems. Another interim has been hired. Clive Heaphy has been hired on £7,000 a week or £270k for nine months. He appears to come with a decent track record of working in finance in a number of local authorities. Many of those roles have been as an “interim”.

Unfortunately the council budgeted for a full time s151 officer at £150k for nine months. So that’s another £120k excess cost incurred by the council.

* John Morton was Lord Chancellor to Henry VII . He was a west countryman born in Bere Regis in Dorset. Henry VII was a famously parsimonious king who, with Morton’s help, restored the royal finances. This was Morton’s Fork:

If when the King visited one of his nobles on royal tour he found the man was living modestly, then Morton reasoned he must be squirreling away a fortune on which he should be taxed.

If however the noble were to lavishly entertain the King then it was clear he was wealthy enough to pay considerably more tax to the royal coffers.

New reader

Before we took our summer break, on 4 July we wrote a piece about the Public Inquiry for the Selwood Garden Village development on the edge of Frome. Somerset Council had, in their wisdom, decided to hold the Public Inquiry in Shepton Mallet. Something which disappointed a large number of Frome residents, many of whom had raised objections to the application.

The development is deeply unpopular with local people and would see the size of the town grow by approximately 20% in just one development. The application was called in by Secretary of State Angela Rayner after Somerset Councillors indicated they were minded to refuse it. However no formal decision was ever taken by the council.

With so much local interest, the decision to hold the meeting in Shepton Mallet seemed bizarre, but Somerset Council offered us a statement outlining their reasons.

In short they were sticking to their guns.

It seems that one of our MPs may have been reading our article too. On 11 July Anna Sabine, Member of Parliament for Frome & East Somerset, issued a statement expressing her own frustration with the decision to hold the Public Inquiry in Shepton Mallet, rather than in Frome.

Anna formally raised concerns with Somerset Council and the Planning Inspectorate. So did she get a better response than Somerset Confidential®? After all she is an MP.

Err no. The reply she received simply stated that the Public Inquiry will remain in Shepton Mallet as planned.

the Public Inquiry will remain in Shepton Mallet as planned

Ms Sabine noted the response was “disappointing” and called on the council to be more responsive to the communities it serves.

She suggested that decision makers should be going out to the public, not expecting the public to travel to them.

Heaven forfend!

In the interests of balance however we feel obliged to note note that on a couple of occasions Somerset Council have held decision making meetings of the Council’s Executive in Frome. That was specifically to allow local people to see the decision being made and comment on it. The most recent example was the decision on the future of Saxonvale which was taken at Frome Town Hall.

Freedom to not give information

A while back, in June this year, we asked Somerset Council about payments that had been made to the Glastonbury Life Factory. The Press Team while answering our other questions promptly, warned that this might have to be taken as a Freedom of Information (FoI) request. Eventually this turned out to be the case. The Press Team did the work for us and filed the FoI request with the council’s FoI team.

That request was acknowledged on 10 June. Which, given the 20 working days allowed under the Freedom of Information Act means answers should have been with us by 9 July. None were forthcoming.

Since then we have had neither answers nor an apology for the lack of response.

However, even further back, during May this year, we asked Somerset Council about the number of festivals they had permitted in the Council’s public parks. And how much money had been earned from those permissions. The friendly and helpful Press Team warned us that our questions might have to be taken as a FoI request. Eventually this turned out to be the case. The Press Team did the work for us and filed the FoI request with the council’s FoI team.

The FoI team confirmed receipt of the request on 28 May. They had 20 days under the Freedom of Information Act to provide the answers.

That should have resulted in answers by 25 June. Again the silence has been deafening. Until finally on 7 July we received an email. Not with the data, but with an apology. “Please accept our sincere apologies on the delay in acknowledging your request, due to unforeseen staff resource issues, our response times are affected. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of service and transparency. If you have any urgent concerns or require immediate assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.”

Whilst we fully understand the problems within Somerset Council that result from the various redundancy rounds and transformation projects, there’s just one problem here.

A lack of staff or problems caused by reorganisation are not actually acceptable reasons for delays under the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has previously stated that: "Delays caused by staffing issues, lack of resources, or internal reorganisation are not acceptable reasons for failing to meet the statutory time limit."

So Somerset Council do not have a valid excuse for failing to meet the Freedom of Information Act timetable of responding within 20 working days.

The chaos within Somerset Council, appears to us to be a problem with management not staff, so we chose not to put in a formal complaint to the ICO which of course we are now entitled to do. Instead we wrote back explaining the issue to Somerset Council’s FoI team and asked for their comment.

To date they haven’t responded, which while not a surprise given events thus far, is still disappointing. Mainly it is disappointing to be given an excuse that the FoI team should have known is not a valid excuse for a delay in providing information.

The ICO were more forthcoming. They told us: “It’s important that organisations are properly staffed so they can deliver responses to information requests in line with their statutory duties. If organisations fail to deliver responses in time or build up backlogs of requests, the ICO can and will take action to ensure that people receive the responses that they are entitled to.

The Information Commissioner wrote to senior leaders across the public sector last year reiterating the importance of taking FOI seriously and supporting their information teams with sufficient resources.”

Glastonbury vacuum

A lot has happened since the last meeting of the Glastonbury Town Deal Board on 11 April this year.

The Board is the organisation tasked with overseeing the progress of the projects in the Town Deal, a £23m fund provided by central government.

There should be a lot to discuss. However as constitutionally the board does not meet in public, we will only know what is going on as soon as minutes of each meeting are made public.

The Town Deal Board only has to meet four times a year. However as the Board Information Sheet explains: “The board meets at least 4 times a year depending on requirements.”

Why might the board want to meet more frequently?

Well for starters since the last Town Deal Board meeting the Chair, Dr Lynne Sedgmore has resigned as has another Board Member, Kama McKenzie, who acted as a community representative on the Board.

However the minutes of the 11 April meeting reveal that the Board already had a vacancy, only one applicant had applied for it and they had been turned down. Perhaps given the revelations about the Life Factory, that was to be expected.

Nevertheless with three vacancies including the Chair, that might have been a reason to hold a Board Meeting with some urgency.

two projects have been given a “red” grading

However we also learn from the 11 April minutes that two projects have been given a “red” grading as “as they have major risks or potential challenges that may affect their ability to complete in line with final year contractual commitments.”

The two projects are the Bailey’s Building and Glastonbury Clean Energy project. And that is in addition to the Life Factory, which now looks as if it will not be possible to complete for reasons we have covered in previous articles.

With all that in the mix, one might have thought that another board meeting was long overdue?

Developers held to account. Or not?

Have you ever wondered why house prices continually rise even when economic factors (inflation, interest rates, recession etc) might suggest they should be falling? One accusation that has been made is that the large housebuilding companies act as a cartel, sharing pricing information and ensuring that prices are maintained with each undertaking not to undercut the other.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched an investigation into this in 2024, investigating seven large housebuilders: Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry. Several of these companies have been involved in developments in Somerset and this case will undoubtedly affect Somerset residents.

The CMA expressed concerns that they: “exchanged details about sales including pricing, number of property viewings and incentives offered to buyers such as upgraded kitchens or stamp duty contributions.”

Needless to say the housebuilders do not admit any liability or wrongdoing for the conduct subject to investigation.

However in exchange for the CMA not pursuing their investigation, they have agreed to provide a £100m contribution to affordable housing programmes across the UK. They also agreed not to share certain types of information with other housebuilders, including the prices houses have been sold for, except in limited circumstances.

a £100m contribution to affordable housing programmes

Which sounds a little odd. Presumably if they hadn’t done it before there was little point in agreeing not to do it in the future.

We had some questions for the CMA about the way this deal came together.

We asked why the CMA was satisfied that a £100m is appropriate and proportionate for the level of price fixing involved? Their CEO, Sarah Cardell told us: "housebuilders are taking clear and comprehensive steps to ensure they comply with the law and don’t share competitively sensitive information with their rivals". A CMA spokesperson added: “We believe the package of measures, alongside the £100 million payment towards affordable housing, effectively addresses our concerns.”

CMA’s Sarah Cardell

We suggested that as the CMA say that housebuilders have agreed not to share price information in future, what will be the mechanism agreed to ensure compliance? They told us: “the housebuilders have signed up to legally binding commitments to address our concerns, including agreeing to not share certain types of information and to develop industry-wide guidance on competition law best practice. These are important commitments and they have to comply. We have various ways to ensure this, including regular monitoring and reporting to the CMA. And if the housebuilders breach these commitments, we can take strong action.”

With a more parochial hat on we also wanted to find out how the £100m will be distributed around the country. Will this be UK or just England? How will the money be allocated across the regions? Will it be on instruction from the CMA or at the discretion of housebuilders?

They told us: “the UK government will allocate the payment to affordable homes programmes across all four nations, including giving funding to devolved governments. Some funding will be given to the Affordable Homes Programme in England, which is administered by Homes England, for example. Registered bodies, such as housing associations, charities and local authorities, can bid for funds.”

Does this work? Well we have to leave that for our readers to judge. Taken in a certain light it sounds a bit like: “here’s £100m to make you not look too closely into our current practices.” Something no doubt everyone involved would deny.

As to the £100m what would that buy? Assuming Affordable Housing costs an average of £150,000 per unit to complete, this offer will provide just 666 Affordable Homes. And that’s for the whole of the UK.

If you look at the housing needs identified in Shepton Mallet alone, between now and 2034 they are expecting something of the order of 400 Affordable/Social homes to be completed (see Neighbourhood Panned below). And that (with no offence to Shepton Mallet and the good folks who live there) is just one small Somerset town….

Which leaves us asking if 666 new Affordable of Social Homes is a generous settlement with our big housebuilders?

Neighbourhood Panned?

Two Neighbourhood Plans went before local residents this week for their seal of approval. The communities of Shepton Mallet and Norton St Philip were invited to give their opinion on the proposals in a referendum.

A Neighbourhood Plan is created by the community for the community and is intended to inform planning decisions. However it must be approved by a Planning Inspector and comply with National and local planning policy.

The Neighbourhood Plan for Shepton is certainly ambitious. The proposal to add a minimum of 1,059 new houses between 2014 and 2034. But by 2023 just 223 had been delivered. One large site at Canards Grave Road accounts for some 600 houses out of the anticipated total.

It was interesting to see that the number proposed was a minimum and that, compared with the current 4,645 households, represented an anticipated increase of 22% in the size of the town by 2034. That’s a very significant uplift and far ahead of projected population growth for England in the same period.

Shepton Mallet is certainly looking to do its bit with the housing crisis.

Indeed the Neighbourhood Plan also shows a recognition of the urgent need for Social homes for rent and Affordable Housing. Targets have been set for 35-45% of all one and two bed homes to be either Social or Affordable.

The Neighbourhood Plan notes that the existing Mendip Local Plan expected that 30% of homes should be in affordable tenures, with a tenure split of 80:20 between social rented housing and other forms of affordable housing.

So how’s that going? Not so well it seems. Somerset Council provided us with figures for the period to 2023. They took the opportunity to clarify that only 214 new homes had been built between 2014 and 2023 (25 of the 223 had been demolished and replaced by 16 larger homes) but of those, just 29 were affordable of which 20 were social rent.

just 29 were affordable of which 20 were social rent

That suggests that just 13.5% have been built as affordable/social. Miles off the target of 30% in the Local Plan and well below the 35-45% the Neighbourhood Plan hopes to impose.

We spoke to Richard Thomas who chaired the group that produced the Neighbourhood Plan. He told us his main concern with the Plan was: “if we are going to meet the town's housing targets - and get the kind of social rent and genuinely affordable housing that we need - we are somehow going to have to bypass the current model of profit-led private company builders. There's nothing wrong with that model if the local economy can carry the profit margins needed, but in an area of traditionally lower priced housing, we go to the bottom of the building queue. We have land identified with planning consents, further land identified, and a housing need. I would love to explore a not-for-profit build on some of our identified land, and the Duchy may well support a longer-term payment plan for land based on future rental income so that the unit cost is not so heavily front-loaded. It needs imaginative thinking and the support of socially-conscious land owners, and perhaps a Neighbourhood Planning process that is more focussed on actual housing delivery rather than policy formation.”

Over in Norton St Philip they have a similar problem albeit on a different scale. The village which has 420 homes as of today has grown by 35% since 2006. Again we see development in another Somerset community far in excess of the rate of population growth across England.

Norton St Philip - wants to preserve its identity

It seems that developers have found Somerset Council and the predecessor district councils to be a soft touch.

However at Norton St Philip even getting as far as a Neighbourhood Plan referendum has been a nightmare. Initial plans were challenged by London based developer Lochailort Investments Ltd who give their address as Jermyn Street just off Piccadilly. They went to the High Court to stop the Neighbourhood Plan going forwards. The upshot was a Judicial Review which threw out all of their objections. Lochailort appealed the decision and the Appeals Court threw out three of their objections but a fourth was allowed.

Then a complicated saga of changes to the local plan, revisions to those changes, a Planning Inspector forcing new changes and two separate Judicial Reviews, one by Lochailort and one by Norton St Philip Parish Council (you can read more about this here) took place just to get to the point where the village could finally hold a referendum on its proposed Neighbourhood Plan.

Back in 2014 the Mendip Local Plan envisaged 45 new houses for the village by 2028. In fact a total of 119 new houses have been built already. Hence this Neighbourhood Plan: “aims to reflect local concern that continuing inappropriate development will harm the unique rural and historic character of the Parish.”

That’s not a freeze on new development but: an acknowledgement that there is: “no residual housing requirement for the Neighbourhood Plan area, this Neighbourhood Plan seeks to provide for further housing through:

• a) allocating a deliverable brownfield site and

• b) an Exception Site

Just one site in the village, the Bell Garage site, has been allocated for new housing with an expectation of just 12 houses to come from it.

The village have put forward a proposal that places emphasis on preserving the character of the village and community ahead of development.

No doubt plenty of developers will try to break that ambition, and they will certainly be helped by the fact that Mendip cannot show a five-year housing land supply. This will mean that the Neighbourhood Plan, even if passed in a referendum, will not carry as much weight in the planning process as it could.

---

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.