Somerset this week: 28 March 2025
This week Natural England put a spanner in the works, in Chard some people just don't know when to stop, some excellent work on ovarian cancer, Yeovil in a mess, while Langport and Huish respond....
Dear readers
Today’s piece is for all of our readers.
However we can only bring these articles to you free, because of our paying subscribers. There’s no such thing as free journalism I’m afraid. Even the BBC has a license fee to sub it.
If you’d like to read more of our work, please consider signing up as a paying subscriber. For which we’ll give you at least 48 extra investigative or analytical pieces every year.
You can do that here for just 58p a week. That’s half of the price of a maltloaf. And it’ll still give you plenty to chew on….
As you’ll see, you can also take a free subscription out to see if you enjoy our material or at least find it interesting. There’s no requirement to leave a credit card and you’ll be sent our weekly news summary automatically.
You can sign up below
And please do help us reach a bigger audience by spreading the word. Many of the articles we write cover subjects ignored or poorly understood elsewhere. Many are exclusives. There’s always something different to read.
We really appreciate (and need) your support!
Thank you
Andrew Lee - editor
Not hearing the message
Congratulations to the BBC who decided to publish their version of our phosphate story a mere 7 days after we did. But as it turns out, it’s already out of date so please read on….
The issue of phosphates on the Somerset Levels has been holding up house building in the Somerset Council area. That has left builders needing to demonstrate nutrient neutrality before their developments can go ahead. In other words, the extra phosphates (mostly from sewage) created by the development will be offset by something (fallowing land or setting up reed beds) that will take phosphates out of the eco system to the same extent.
This has not proved impossible, but the various solutions on offer have been difficult to implement and expensive for the Council.
On 17 March we reported on some legal advice received by Somerset Council. That legal advice made two things clear:
Natural England cannot instruct Somerset Council to do anything, it can only advise them.
The work of Wessex Water to clean up the Levels with new and improved treatment plants far exceeds the level required to return the Levels to a state of relative cleanliness. It anticipates further housebuilding on a large scale.
The implication being that this work can be treated as contributing to nutrient neutrality.
It leaves Somerset Council with a solution that both works and is cheap. It also leaves Somerset Council waiting on a response to the legal opinion from their own officers and from Natural England.
Somerset Confidential® raised the issue with Natural England and they sent us a statement. It reads: “The latest legal opinion received by the Council concluded that this is a matter of fact as to whether the improvements required by legislation were to enable development or the recovery of the designated site. The Water Industry Environment Plan (WINEP) sets out the actions needed by the water sector to improve the natural environment and does not include actions that provide enhancements to accommodate growth.
This is further supported by the fact that alongside the provisions secured under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act which are included in the WINEP, the Government also determined that it was necessary to provide the local planning authorities and Natural England with significant additional funding with the specific requirement to deliver additional mitigation measures necessary to unlock housing affected by the ongoing requirement for phosphorus neutrality.
Natural England has worked closely with Somerset Council and individual developers to ensure the schemes can achieve phosphorus neutrality.”
In short, Natural England do not agree with the legal opinion received by Somerset Council and are much happier to continue with the relatively expensive solutions currently on offer. Which of course they advise on, but do not pay for.
Nor do they acknowledge Wessex Water’s own observations about the scale of phosphate removal they plan for which is included in the legal opinion and which appears to contradict the statement by Natural England.
It is also interesting to note they do not comment on the section of the legal opinion that suggests Somerset Council are not obliged to follow advice from Natural England!
Hearing the message
Sometimes coincidences are irresistible. Such as the press release from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID) complaining that across the country local NHS services too often do not offer ear wax removal, as once would have been commonplace.
Ear wax removal services are essential and RNID suggest that around 2.3 million people in the UK need professional ear wax removal every year. Without the service people face painful symptoms, limited audiology care, and mental health challenges.
Yet RNID tell us there is a lack of consistent NHS ear wax removal services, particularly as many GP surgeries no longer offer this service. Private removal, often costing up to £100, is unaffordable for many.
By complete coincidence a few days later Somerset NHS Foundation Trust announced it had joined forces with the RNID to provide a hearing aid support service for residents, their families, friends and colleagues in care homes across Somerset. There are more than 80,000 people in Somerset with moderate, severe or profound hearing loss, and this is rising with the ageing population.
A greater need for hearing aids, and a problem with not sorting out ear wax removal. In the infamous words of Ena B Maxwell, could these two by any chance be related? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it was worth investigating….
So, without ignoring the very interesting and vital partnership announced by Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, we dragged them back to the issue of ear wax removal. How was that going in Somerset? Is it still possible to get access to decent treatment in our county?
By the way we are not just talking about ear ‘syringing’ here. The term is no longer used as there are now many more procedures used for removal.
A spokesperson for NHS Somerset (The integrated care board), which is responsible for commissioning general practice services in the county, told Somerset Confidential®: “We’re committed to ensuring everyone who needs NHS aural care can access safe, local care. We commission a comprehensive primary care pathway, with each of our 62 practices delivering ear irrigation, and groups of practices, known as primary care networks, are commissioned to provide micro-suction. We are currently reviewing this pathway to ensure it is working as well as it should.”
Meanwhile, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust told us: “We run approximately three clinics a week for patients with complex ears (ie. those who’ve had ENT issues), from Musgrove Park Hospital, as well as an extra clinic at the weekend where there is a high demand. We also run clinics from Bridgwater too. The clinics are nurse-led and overseen by consultants.”
So it sounds like there is provision, but there are hints in the responses that maybe not everyone is able to access treatment as quickly as they should. But at least our local NHS is on the case and seeking improvements.
So back then to the new partnership with the RNID on hearing aids. Interestingly, there is some crossover with the issue of accessing hearing treatments here too although the initiative is obviously focused on the older section of society living in care homes.
The new partnership will provide hearing checks, basic hearing aid repairs, information and signposting to the 200 care homes across the county, to ensure care home residents are able to access the services and support they need.
RNID tell us that hearing loss is the second most common disability in the UK. However, as an invisible disability, it often goes unremarked. Locally over 4,000 older people in Somerset live in care homes; Somerset NHS Foundation Trust say that they are disproportionately affected by hearing loss. Approximately 75% of residents report having an issue with their hearing.
The service will be run by trained volunteers working alongside care home colleagues and the families of residents, to promote awareness of hearing loss and support with communication.
However, we couldn’t help wondering reading through the plans, if this isn’t a service that should be rolled out beyond the limited scope of those living in care homes. Especially as there is a substantial (approximately 138,000) population in Somerset aged over 65. Especially after reading that Emma Ralph, an audiologist and audiology manager at Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, says: “Providing this service in Somerset will improve access to hearing services, reduce the issues associated with hearing loss such as loneliness and isolation, reduce travel times, and, most importantly, improve patient experience.”
All of those issues apply to many many people who are not living in care homes. Should we not be considering them too?
And when we are told only 41% of the general public are confident when communicating with people with hearing loss, the need for a wider ranging service is surely self-evident?
Not hearing the message 2
Last week we reported, with some relief, on an effort by Chard Town Council’s Clerk and Chief Executive David Bell, to draw a line under the in-fighting at the Council over the past few years. An apology was prepared, discussed and passed by an overwhelming majority of councillors.
That should have been that.
Unfortunately, the Yeovil constituency LibDems decided to issue a press release over the weekend, which continues to snipe and has a number of unfortunate omissions.
They say: “The Yeovil Liberal Democrats are pleased to acknowledge the recent unreserved apology issued by Chard Town Council to its councillors regarding the handling of the 'Rolley Report’.”
So far so good. Though it is worth noting that the apology was issued to all Chard Town Councillors, not just the LibDem councillors.
There also seems to be an implicit lack of understanding that the Town Council is in part made up (among others) of the very councillors who are in effect apologising to themselves. Which, given the findings of Mr Bell, is appropriate.
Especially as he notes in his own report: “…as Town Clerk and Proper Officer, I need to make it quite clear that if councillors undertake certain activities or present in what may be deemed an unreasonable way in the day-to-day running of the Council, then this may be viewed as aggressive (depending on the individual viewpoint) and, in some cases, illegal behaviour. I mention this because I have found such instances in my investigation.”
So just for clarity, the work by Mr Bell does not say everyone is innocent, it says we need to draw a line under things, present an apology to all involved including the public and attempt to move on.
The LibDem press release also fails to note that the apology was also made to council staff, members of the public and Mr Chris Rolley.
It is therefore especially unfortunate that the Yeovil LibDems press release continues: “After two years of enduring fake news, rumours, and a biased report, this apology marks a significant step toward accountability and reconciliation.”
Ignoring the unsubstantiated claims of fake news and treating them for what they are, the statement that the report (the Rolley Report) was biased directly contradicts the papers supporting the apology from the town council.
It is perhaps a good example of fake news. A statement made without a shred of evidence being offered to support it.
It ignores the fact that along with the apology to councillors, there is also an apology to Chris Rolley, the author of the report.
In fact it is a bizarre statement to make.
It is an especially bizarre statement to make at this point in proceedings when everyone is trying to draw a line under the past.
The report that Mr Bell does note would have benefited from being genuinely independent is the review of the Rolley Report commissioned by Chard Town Councillors (including the LibDem councillors on the council). Here Mr Bell notes: “the skills and experience to carry out such a specialist task did not appear evident with the staff at the time, nor were these skills and experience sought...” and “it would have been more appropriate to have approached an independent source such as, perhaps, a local Town Council.”
It is also disappointing to read, that whilst focusing on councillors, the LibDem press release makes no acknowledgement of the apology to officers. Because the apology voted through by the Council was expressly also made to council officers.
Many of whom have been given a torrid time throughout this period. Several have left the Council and, in the search for new jobs, had to leave the area. Council officers are often under-appreciated and in a toxic political environment trying to navigate a path in a straight and unbiased task can be a thankless task.
Nevertheless at least the press release, whilst continuing to snipe, acknowledges that the apology is a step forward.
Except…. if this is a good thing, something to be welcomed as the press release suggests, it leaves one item unexplained. The only councillor not to vote in support of the apology was LibDem Councillor Jason Baker.
No doubt it was a lack of space, that prevented the LibDems from publishing this fact in their press release.
While it would be wrong to leave this press release without comment, we sincerely hope that this is the end of the matter and that genuine attempts at reconciliation are made.
That requires all councillors going forward to make an effort to adopt the spirit of the full text of the apology by Chard Town Council. Not just the bits that suit individual councillors and their parties.
Have your say on a new council…or no
Back in February we reported on the governance review looking at a possible merger between Huish Episcopi Parish Council and Langport Town Council (you can read that piece here - “Reviewing the future of Langport and Huish Episcopi”).
Well that consultation process is now underway.
That review will seek the opinions of what Somerset Council describe as “key stakeholders”. That includes Sarah Dyke the MP for Glastonbury and Somerton, Richard Wilkins and Mike Stanton the elected members for the Curry Rivel and Langport divisions at Somerset Council, and current councillors sitting on Huish Episcopi Parish Council and Langport Town Council.
But anybody else who wants to make a written representation can contribute to the debate too.
If you’d like to have your pennyworth then please contact the Community Governance Review team:
via e-mail: cgr@somerset.gov.uk
by post to: CGR- Electoral Services, Somerset Council, County Hall, The Crescent, Somerset, TA1 4DY
Final recommendations will be put to the Constitution and Governance Committee of Somerset Council this autumn.
If the decision to merge the two councils is given the green light, then implementation will be effective from April 2027.
Somerset excels at ovarian cancer care
The headline is impressive. More people in Somerset with ovarian cancer are surviving over 12 months from diagnosis than almost everywhere else in the country. Only one NHS Trust saw better survival rates.
The latest report published by (the now to be abolished) NHS England shows that 77% of those with ovarian cancer are surviving at least one year after their diagnosis.
The figures, although the latest published, are a little out of date as they relate to data from 2021.
Still it is good news. Ish. Because sadly this is not a cancer where the long-term prognosis tends to be good.
The very fact that the data is based on surviving just 12 months from diagnosis probably tells you a lot.
Miss Jo Morrison, a gynaecological-oncology consultant (the team that deals with ovarian cancer) at Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, explains: “Ovarian cancer tends to present late when it cannot be kept away forever, even with the best treatment, our aim is therefore to cure where we can and to help everyone live longer and better.”
We asked about this because presumably the outcome for any one particular patient will depend entirely on the stage of their cancer at the point where they are diagnosed. So a trust that diagnosed routinely earlier than another catching a cancer at stage 1 or stage 2, would inevitably do better than a Trust that tended to pick up a diagnosis later.
A spokesperson for the Trust explained that the statistics are based on survival rates from diagnosis. This is then adjusted for other factors such as age/comorbidities and other demographic data that affect survival.
The data is inevitably an average of all patients. Total survival time is very variable, and dependent on the stage of the cancer. Some will be really poorly and not fit for treatment, whereas other will do really well and not recur for over 5 years with many others somewhere in between.
They told us: “The survival figures were based on all stages, so yes as per your question, those with stage 1 do much better than those with stage 3-4.”
Unfortunately it seems that across the board survival rates for ovarian cancer are not good. The spokesperson told us: “3 out of 4 people present with advanced disease (stages 3 and 4) where it may not be something we can make go away and stay away for ever.”
The success of the team is therefore as much that they aim to give people as much quality time as possible, albeit often with several lines of treatment rather than being in a position to cure the cancer.
Even so it is something for the local NHS to be proud of and an indication that they must be doing something right.
Spring has sprung
Spring springing is significant given the anticipated timetable for renewal in Yeovil’s Glovers Walk area. Admittedly we are only one week into spring, but the prognosis of Somerset Council when they appointed contractors to demolish Glovers Walk is already looking as shaky as the buildings on the site.
The Council said back in January 2024: “Survey works have already commenced, combined with a range of other activities to make the site ready for demolition, which will be carried out in phases starting in late October. This will initially focus on the building interiors and then move in mid/late November to the demolition of the structures. The aim is for all work to be completed by early Spring 2025.”
Well, when Somerset Confidential® sent a reporter along to take a look, things did not appear to have moved on much. Not only are most of the buildings scheduled for demolition still very much upright, but the mess around the new amphitheatre was all too evident.
This is exactly as we predicted when the proposals for regeneration of Glovers Walk were announced. A multi-million-pound development at the heart of the town centre now looks like the centre of a Soviet-era town centre in Eastern Europe.
When our reporter visited the amphitheatre was desolate, surrounded by crumbling buildings that had not been demolished and did not appear to be close to it either. The sole occupant was having an early morning drink from a bottle concealed in a newspaper while detritus and litter blew around the area. Someone appeared to have thrown something at the expensive video screen, the focal point of the amphitheatre.
There’s still no sign of an idea for the “meanwhile” use of the Glovers Walk area but, given the slow progress of the demolition work, that no longer seems to be much of an issue.
Spring forward
On the subject of spring, don’t forget that British Summer Time begins on Sunday (30 March). Clocks go forward one hour at 1am on Sunday morning, so 1am becomes 2am. Don’t forget to check all your electronic devices as some will reset automatically – and some do not!
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.
As ever a very thought provoking article.
'Nutrient neutrality' which to me means 'someone is making more than a few quid'.
After all, isn't that the point of advisors, consultants and the like, making money with no responsibility or comeback? And it's usually taxpayer funded!
The Chard saga runs on and on, the Liberal Demotwats (oops must remember to turn spell check on) just can't seem to find it in them to acknowledge any perceived mistakes or wrongdoing.
You would have thought they would have learnt some lessons in listening as a result of the electoral disaster, post coalition government, but I suppose some people think they are above all that.
At least there was a good news story about the NHS in Somerset which cheered me up for the weekend ahead.
The phosphates issue is certainly complicated, technically, legally, and organisationally. But recent Somerset Confidential articles on it seem to be shooting the messenger as far as Natural England is concerned. There are a couple of points in today's article that aren't clear to me:
1) "The work of Wessex Water to clean up the Levels with new and improved treatment plants ... leaves Somerset Council with a solution that both works and is cheap. ". Is it cheap? I understand that our water bills are to go up to pay for such improvements. Also, it's a question of timing. If the new water treatment works can treat the extra sewage from new houses, then good. But if they come on stream after that, then there's a problem.
2) The article complains that Natural England don't comment on whether they can tell Somerset Council what to do. But that seems a strange complaint. Natural England's role here is to advise Somerset Council on its statutory obligations relative to legislation in place, and to monitor and advise on the ecological state of the Levels and its relation to phosphates and other excess nutrients in the water.