Somerset this week: 4 July 2025
The village set to grow by 25%, NHS Somerset says no to numbers, how much of Bath does B&NES own, MP commits to sorting Post Office and planning inquiry to be in Shepton.
Dear readers
With the summer now upon is Somerset Confidential is going to have a one week holiday next week so today’s is a bumper issue. There’ll be a special piece on Monday but no weekly summary on Friday. Then from Monday 14th we will be back fully energised to restart our usual schedule.
Please subscribe to get your free weekly news summary delivered to your inbox. There’s no need to miss an edition. 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 in 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
Hidden Charges
It is no secret to residents of Somerton that they have no Post Office. The Post Office on the Triangle near to Tony’s Fish ‘n Chips closed down in 2022.
When we last questioned the Post Office why they had been unable to get a new location for a Post Office in Somerton, Antoinette Chitty told us: “We regret that we have been unable to restore a service locally and have provided details of possible alternative branches in the area, which we hope our customers will continue to use.”
The nearest service is now in Compton Dundon or Long Sutton. Villages that find themselves with a better service than a town four times their size. Meanwhile other local Post Offices such as that in Charlton Adam and Butleigh have closed in the last couple of years.
The Post Office is government owned (unlike Royal Mail) and has made a commitment that “We ensure 99.7% of the population lives within 3 miles of a post office and 93% live within 1 mile.”
Unlucky Somerton residents are in the 0.3% being more than 3 miles from either Long Sutton or Compton Dundon.
So what is going wrong? Certainly the Post Office have been keen to promote the idea of a business coming forward to take on a Post Office counter. Back in 2022 they circulated a notice to the community telling them: “We would welcome any applications from potential retail partners interested in running a branch locally on our behalf.”
Why has no one come forward? Well some have. But while the Post Office are keen to invite shops to take on a service on behalf of the Post Office, they are less keen to tell them how much they expect the shopkeeper to pay for the privilege of having a Post Office counter put in.
And the amounts demanded are substantial. And appear to be pretty much random numbers. We have heard of shops in Somerset interested in pursuing the idea, being asked for variously £14,000, £25,000 and £20,000.
We asked the Post Office to explain these apparently random demands for money. Their spokesperson told us: “The costs for setting up a Post Office in a shop will depend upon the extent of the work required on each premises to fit the counters. Sometimes costs can be reduced by repurposing items from another Post Office location.
Post Offices provide communities with essential services, such as banking and mail services, so the additional customer footfall generated from these services, plus the post office income can bring benefits to the business owner. Therefore, a retailer may decide to invest in their business by applying to operate and install a Post Office.”
They may. But in the last three years in Somerton, they have decided not to. And as if the Post Office had learned no lessons from the Horizon scandal, it didn’t seem relevant to them to mention the small matter of forking out tens of thousands of pounds when putting out a notice pleading for shops to come forward.
What the Post Office appear not to realise, is that independent shops are not, like the Post Office, run on government largesse. Not every shop has a spare £20,000 lying around to pay the Post Office to invest in a Post Office counter service. COVID has hit retailers hard and now we have a cost of living crisis on top of that.
As well as being coy about letting the public know how much they are asking from retailers, not a good look following the Horizon scandal, the Post Office arguably look out of touch demanding so much money up front from retailers.
The fact that so many Post Offices are closing (Frome has no town centre Post Office and hasn’t had for a couple of years) and it is proving so hard to get new retailers to take on a Post Office counter, should be telling the Post Office something.
Back in 2022 the Post Office told residents of Somerton they: “would like to assure you that we are currently investigating the options available which will enable us to reinstate a Post Office service to the local community….The provision of a Post Office service to our customers in the local community is important to us, and we will continue to work hard to restore services in the area as soon as possible”
Three years later and it is starting to look as if the amount Post Office demand for set up costs may be the real reason that Somerton has no Post Office.
As it happens there is a business that would love to give it a go. Somerton Stores opposite Forsey Funeral Directors are interested.
Local MP Sarah Dyke visited Somerton Stores today (3 July) to meet with the new owners Mr and Mrs Thievendran who took it on last year. Having had lots of enquiries from residents about setting up a post office counter, in June, the Thievendrans launched a local petition. In just two weeks they had gathered more than 800 signatures (that’s pretty much a third of all households in the town) in favour of a full-service Post Office counter opening at Somerton Stores.
However, as readers will now realise, they were advised by the Post Office’s Network Provision Lead that opening a counter would need to be self-funded by the Thievendrans, at a cost of £20,000.
Sarah Dyke is now determined to get something moving. She explained: “In my role as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Rural Services I’m committed to ensuring our rural communities are properly served. Reinstating a Post Office in Somerton is critical not only to the town’s residents but also to local businesses.
Reinstating a Post Office in Somerton is critical
Together with presenting a Petition to Parliament on this matter, I will be contacting the Post Office’s Chief Executive, its Regional Director and other relevant parties urgently to explore how the barriers to opening a Post Office counter at Somerton Stores and other in-need locations across the Glastonbury & Somerton constituency can be overcome.”
One can only wonder how many MPs will be surprised to learn that the reason their communities cannot get a Post Office is the amount the Post Office want to charge to put a counter in. If Sarah Dyke’s APPG can publicise this, many more may want to get on board with the issue.
In the end it seems the problem is not the lack of willing applicants after all…..
Selwood at Shepton
When a council makes a decision, they run the risk that there will always be some part of the population that is less than chuffed. And so it is with the decision to host the Public Inquiry into the plans for Selwood Garden Village at the old Mendip District Council offices in Shepton Mallet.
The planning application which would fill the fields between the Sainsbury supermarket and the A361 ringroad with 1,700 homes and turn the area into a building site for the next 5 years, has prompted considerable opposition in the town of Frome. Members of the public lodged 479 objections with only two in favour of the application.
With such a degree of public interest from Frome, about a planning application at the edge of Frome, Frome residents assumed the Planning Inquiry would be held in Frome.
When it was announced that it would instead be held in Shepton Mallet, a number of people contacted us unhappy at the decision.
The rules governing the location of Public Inquiries are clear:
Although it would be helpful for the venue to be near the appeal or order site – e.g. to allow more local residents to attend – this will have to be weighed against other matters:
be conveniently located for the majority of those wishing to attend;
be well served by public transport;
have adequate parking facilities close by, with a space reserved for the Inspector unless notified that this will not be required;
The suggestion from residents being that Shepton Mallet is not close to Frome, the public transport is restricted to a single bus service with 4 buses a day in each direction, and a lack of sufficient parking (19 spaces).
We asked Somerset Council what the logic was for choosing Shepton Mallet? They told us: “Careful consideration was given to the location of the inquiry. We have to confirm with the Planning Inspectorate the location for hearings at an early stage in the process and meet the requirements not only for a hearing venue but also for separate rooms at the venue to be available for the Planning Inspector, applicant team and officer team. We also have to be mindful of the need for reception/security/welfare facilities required especially when a large number of the public are expected to attend.
The Shepton Mallet hub is where public meetings for a range of matters that affect the towns in the East Area of Somerset Council typically take place, including Planning and Licensing committees which often involves residents travelling if they wish to participate. The venue was available for the duration of the inquiry which is likely to last for at least four days.
Cost is also a factor as the planning service does not have a budget to cover public meetings and the associated other costs in terms of providing the additional space/security and reception etc.
We do recognise that this will result in some of those wishing to participate needing to travel from Frome and that this is less than ideal from their perspective but taking into account the considerations above we believe this is the most suitable venue for an inquiry which is likely to attract a large number of participants/observers and we have issued guidance on the availability of nearby parking at the Commercial Road car park alongside the parking available at the Shepton Mallet hub.”
The Public Inquiry will be held from 10am on 29th July and is scheduled to last for 4 days.
Whatever happened to Elbit?
With words spoken from the stage at Glastonbury about Gaza and the Israeli Defence Force now being investigated as a hate crime, it is as good a time as ever to revisit the involvement of Somerset Council in the Palestinian issue. The council may well have been genuinely unaware of their tangential involvement with the Palestinian cause.
At least until two separate incidents in March and April 2024.
Then activists believed to be from protest group (now proscribed as a terrorist group) Palestine Action plastered the Somerset Council building in Taunton with red paint. They were protesting the fact that Somerset Council was landlord of the UK subsidiary of Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit.
And at the time that was a fact. The property in Bristol was part of the property portfolio inherited from the district councils when Somerset Council was created.
Somerset Council passed a resolution at a full council meeting requiring officers to dispose of the building. During the debate several councillors spoke out againts Elbit and its activities, alleging links between the British company and supplies to the IDFR.
Elbit responded, contacting the council to say Elbit Systems UK does not make weapons for the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).
Whilst this is literally true, Elbit Systems UK’s Israeli parent does indeed supply arms for the IDF. For instance in 2023 they won a major contract to supply drones to the IDF.
Elbit UK demanded an apology and got one from the council’s CEO, Duncan Sharkey.
However as Elbit’s own CEO told an investor conference in 2024: “It doesn’t matter if the company in England is called Elbit Systems UK, and Martin its English CEO is based in England, he sells goods whose IP comes from Netanya, for the purpose of this discussion… he gets this IP and he sells it as Elbit. He only sells it locally as Elbit, it is a company that is 100% Elbit.”
The nuance hardly mattered in the end as Somerset Council sold the building (Aztec West in Bristol) in which Elbit was a tenant in October 2024.
But what about the clean-up costs from the attack on Somerset Council’s Taunton HQ?
A spokesperson for Somerset Council told us that the clean-up costs had been around £20,000. So is that money all to be paid by Somerset’s council taxpayers?
Not necessarily. However the action the council have taken is still not concluded over a year after the attacks took place. Somerset Council told us they have taken legal action against the individuals involved (who the council cannot name for legal reasons).
“It remains our intent to pursue costs.”
That is not yet concluded so there will be no further comment until it is. In the meantime they told us: “It remains our intent to pursue costs.”
The village about to explode
We have written about this before, but sadly the various planning committees of Somerset Council are not minded to do anything about it. Large housing estates are being added to villages across the county that not only fundamentally change the nature of the community, but drive a coach and horses through the council’s own settlement strategy as set out in the Local Plan. The idea of a settlement strategy being to allocate new housing on a scale commensurate with each existing settlement in the area.
In many cases the infrastructure in these communities is already at breaking point, and neither CIL nor s106 money (payments that developers can be asked to make to support local infrastructure when new estates are built) is being used to set this right.
The latest victim is Keinton Mandeville, a village halfway between Somerton and Castle Cary, with a population of some 1,215 souls. Last month Area South Councillors approved planning permission on a development of 100 houses. Which, assuming an average of three people per household, would add 300 to the population of the village – or to put it another way, 25% in a single development.
The development is separated from the core of the village by a row of four large fields running north to south between the new development and the village.
With this application approved, it is only a matter of time before the rest is filled in.
The site has been deemed a sustainable development because of public transport and access to what are laughingly called “local amenities”.
With no disrespect to the good folks of Keinton Mandeville and their rather lovely village, the local amenities in question are a single shop and a pub.
As to public transport, either the councillors making this decision don’t use it and/or they appear to have no knowledge of it.
We can help them out. There is a single bus service offering just six buses a day on weekdays to and from Castle Cary and Street. There’s four services on Saturday and none on Sunday. This is what Somerset Council considers to be public transport sufficient for a site to be deemed sustainable.
a single bus service offering just six buses a day on weekdays
The Officer’s Report presented to councillors noted that: “if this proposal were to be approved, the scale of growth in Keinton Mandeville cumulatively would be commensurate with that of the higher Rural Centres.” This is part of the settlement hierarchy laid out in the Local Plan.
Settlements are classed in various categories and here lies the problem. Because Keinton Mandeville was not classed as a Rural Centre but a Rural Settlement, so with a lower expectation for development. Something the officer appears to have ignored in selling the development to councillors.
Unsurprisingly, 500 residents submitted objections, in itself impressive out of a population of 1,215. However the most curious aspect to this application was the volte face by the council’s Landscape Officer. As Fletcher Robinson for CPRE Somerset pointed out: “Back in April she said this is ‘a typical urban extension, inappropriate in a village, and contrary to Policy EQ2. Now she says that reducing the scheme from 120 houses to 100 houses has changed her mind. How?” The officer attempted to answer the question but without conviction.
So we asked the Council ourselves. A Somerset Council spokesperson replied: “The proposed development was amended, in response to our comments that were fed back to the developer during the course of considering the application. The amendments include the reduction in the number of dwellings and the introduction of a landscape-led design approach. The change in approach significantly improved the integration of green infrastructure within the proposed residential areas, as well as significantly increasing both the proportion of green infrastructure throughout the site and the landscaping buffers between the proposed residential areas and the open countryside. The Council considered, therefore, that the design of the proposed development responds well to the challenge of integrating this extension at the village edge such that it is no longer considered to be a 'typical urban extension'.
“The benefits of the development include the provision of much needed affordable housing for local people, additional parking for the village hall and footpath links at the edge of the settlement to allow existing and new residents easier access the countryside.”
Which explains away the design aspect but conveniently overlooks the real issue, which is that the development is simply disproportionate for a small village of the size of Keinton Mandeville.
Mr Robinson also pointed out: “The Applicant’s landscape assessment has been called a ‘fundamental misunderstanding of the assessment process’, by Carly Tinkler, one of the most senior landscape consultants in the country. She serves on the Landscape Institute’s best practice committee and drafts the guidelines for landscape assessment.” The slightly strange response from the officer was that she agreed with much of what Carly Tinkler said. And there the issue was left.
When Cllr Page pointed out that the primary school was full (without space to add an extra classroom) and therefore there would be nowhere for the children from the development to go to school locally (again a matter that comes back to the sustainability of the site), the response was that the experts in the Council’s education department had assured the planning officer that this would not be a problem!
So that’s all right then.
There was no other evidence offered.
The decision to approve was by a narrow margin, seven in favour and five against but there are so many holes in the argument put forward to approve the application, that there is a real risk of challenge via Judicial Review. And if that challenge comes and is successful, there’s risk of costs being awarded against the Council.
It’s ours!
When Bath & North East Somerset (B&NES) Council set out to improve the Milsom Quarter in the centre of the city, the transformation of the Post Office into a new home for the Fashion Museum was a central plank of the plan. It turns out that the Council had bought the Post Office to secure the future of the site.
When another central plank of the plan was announced recently as the refurbishment of the former Jolly’s department store, we wondered why the Council would do that for the benefit of the store site owner.
Our bad! It turns out that B&NES owns the former department store site too. In fact B&NES is the happy beneficiary of history. The Ancient Corporate Possessions of the City of Bath date back to the 13th century although, bizarrely, they were not formally scheduled until the 19th century.
As a result, as the various reorganisations of local government through the 20th century took shape, B&NES has inherited a portfolio of 283 buildings in BA1 And BA2 (in other words in central Bath) and that excludes the Council’s own buildings.
B&NES has inherited a portfolio of 283 buildings
That portfolio includes the former Jolly’s department store at numbers 7-14 Milsom Street. We asked how much the building had cost the council, but this seems, quite genuinely, to be lost in the mists of time. There is no known acquisition date or cost for the building as it was acquired before the 19th century!
All of which means we can now answer our own question. The beneficiary of the cost the Council will bear in refurbishing the store site is none other than the Council.
Plans for the store will see it reopen as part of Morleys Stores in Spring 2026. Like Jolly’s before it, Morleys Stores is a department store group. It currently operates seven stores mostly in Greater London: Elys Wimbledon, Pearsons Enfield, Roomes Fashion & Home Upminster, Selbys Holloway, Morleys Brixton and Morleys Bexleyheath, plus Camp Hopson Newbury showing that they are starting to head westwards…
Bristol-based contractor Bray & Slaughter will carry out a programme of restorative works to the building, starting with an overhaul of the external fabric to ensure it is weathertight. The work will include extensive roofing renewals, window repairs and rain water and drainage improvements. This work will secure the building as an asset for the benefit of the Council.
Once this is complete, further internal refurbishment work will be carried out by Morleys. During the restoration, vinyl window graphics will display a series of images set in a timeline highlighting the rich history of Jolly’s in Bath from the opening of a ‘seasonal’ shop circa 1823, to the planned reopening as part of Morleys Stores in spring 2026.
See no evil
The decision to close the Hyper Acute Stroke Unit (HASU) in Yeovil has, as we have reported previously, been deeply unpopular in South Somerset. Not least because for a number of patients, it seems to be likely that their journey to hospital will increase and, with that, the potential outcomes for them will risk being commensurately worse.
In essence, during a stroke blood flow to the brain is restricted, leading to oxygen deprivation and cell damage. For every minute that passes, approximately 1.9 million brain cells can be lost. The case presented by NHS Somerset (the ICB) is that by having the staff and facilities in place in the Dorset County Hospital in Dorchester, and Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton, any loss of time in getting to the hospital will be compensated for by a speedier response within the receiving hospital. This is the “door to needle time”, the time taken from hospital admission to the administration of intravenous thrombolytic therapy (an injection of anti-clot medication).
In any case they have railroaded through their preferred option of moving Yeovil stroke patients to Dorchester, or in some cases Taunton. In the process they ignored a consultation which revealed patient groups and the local population did not want this to happen.
You might say that local people don’t have the medical knowledge to contradict the medical experts. To which we would respond, that it is inappropriate to waste people’s time and taxpayers money indulging in a consultation if you have no intention of heeding if it does not give the answer you want.
A request for a call in of the decision was made by a number of local groups, including Yeovil Town Council, Yeovil’s Quicksilver Community Group and backed by Yeovil MP Adam Dance.
However Health Secretary Wes Streeting turned down the call in request.
Somerset Confidential® understands that Mr Dance then proposed a solution to test the logic of NHS Somerset’s proposition. That for a trial period patients would be referred to Yeovil for five days a week and two days a week to Dorchester/Musgrove. Data could then be collected for what actually happens to underscore a case for the future of the HASU – one way or another.
Yeovil HASU staff are on board with the idea.
The suggestion was met with a refusal by NHS Somerset
The suggestion was met with a refusal by NHS Somerset. In a letter to the MP that Somerset Confidential® has seen, CEO Jonathan Higman suggests that Yeovil cannot meet the requirements of a HASU.
This is contentious. Yeovil could provide that cover and has recently undertaken a recruitment exercise that demonstrated the required coverage could be provided. The suggested trial was for six months and it is worth noting that NHS Somerset spent £8.2m less than their funding in this year 2024/25 so it could have invested money in this trial if it wished to.
But this is not the only opportunity to gain evidence that NHS Somerset has turned down. Previously they confirmed that data on time taken to get patients from incident to hospital and hospital door to needle would not be kept once the HASU transferred to Dorchester. Data that would demonstrate whether or not the clinical decision taken by NHS Somerset was the correct one.
It all seems as if NHS Somerset are determined that there will be no data available to demonstrate that their decision was the right decision. Or not, as the case may be.
Meanwhile Somerset Confidential® understands that there are moves afoot to ask Health Secretary Wes Streeting to take another look at NHS Somerset’s decision and call it in again.
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.
Regarding Post Office's.
Another thing that might put people off 'running a village/small town PO' is that income is derived per transaction as opposed to the previous system where a 'lump sum' was paid to sub-postmasters by PO.
This 'new system' is subject to the vagaries of the public, that and the drive for online banking/payments, the future of the 'rural PO' is not looking too rosy!
It may mean, in the short term, more PO's are based in 'community village shops'.
Spaxton and Oake are examples of villages whose PO's closed, but have been fortunate to have a PO re-open inside of the 'community village shop'.
These of course depend on local volunteers to serve, stocktake, clean etc. Could it be that the rural PO will end up going the same way as the village blacksmith, thatcher and fuel stations?
It's hard not to see that Somerset Council "appeased" criminal damage direct action by Palestine Action in their accommodating response to their demands.
Palestine Action pressured Somerset Council into a property divestment and almost certainly a rushed sale, incurring a capital loss and a loss of rental income. Is that financial information available?
Has Somerset Council's apparent "appeasement" of this deliberate and repeated vandalism, encouraged an escalation of criminal direct action by Palestine Action, eventually and indirectly leading to the Brize Norton RAF £7m of damage to defence assets?
Certainly, if a public listed building can be vandalised three times, costing public services and taxpayers £20K, surely there should be both criminal and financial consequences for those responsible?
I doubt we would let local youths get away with similar repeated vandalism.
I hope Somerset Confidential will hold the Council's "feet to the fire" and ensure the adults criminally responsible pay the £20K to rectify their repeated damage back- money that could be spent on say vulnerable children or potholes.