Somerset this week: 7 February 2025

Elections in Bridgwater, Burnham and Taunton, anger at Bridgwater's council tax, an Inquiry in Frome, asset sales in Taunton, Wessex devolution bid derailed and why Eastover isn't celebrating...

Dear readers

This edition is for all our readers. We offer a weekly free news coverage as we believe in making as much of our work free as possible.

However obviously we cannot do that without our paying subscribers. We don’t take adverts in part to make your reading experience better, in part to avoid any conflicts of interest.

If you are a paying subscriber reading this please accept our thanks for taking a subscription out to support our work. In return you’ll get at least 48 special issues a year covering our analytical and investigative work.

And that’s all for £30 or 58p a week.

We need our subscribers to support our journalism and develop our coverage of events around our county. Coverage that other local papers simply don’t offer.

If you have friends, relatives or work colleagues who might be interested in Somerset Confidential, please let them know and encourage them to join us. You can subscribe here:

But whether or not you subscribe, please do spread the word. We need your help to let more people know about what we do. The more that do, the more we can do!

Thank you

Andrew Lee - editor

---

Whose fault is it anyway?

Bridgwater’s Labour-controlled council has come under fire for raising council tax (it’s called the precept when it is a town or parish). Nothing new there then you might think. It is a traditional critique of Labour in Government, whether local or national.

But is it fair?

The precept for Bridgwater for the coming fiscal year 2025/26 is to rise to £4,299,101 – an increase of a fraction under 40%. It will give Bridgwater the second highest precept for a town council in Somerset after LibDem Taunton Town Council (£6.5m).

While Taunton Town Council’s precept only rose by 11.3% for the same period, it is also worth remembering that looking at it over the past two years, Taunton Town Council’s precept has trebled.

Some remarks have been made about the size of Bridgwater’s tax rise when compared with that of Somerset Council. But here there are some important factors to consider. In May last year (after the 2024/25 precept level had been set) Bridgwater Town Council agreed a deal with Somerset Council.

the town council agreed to take on services that Somerset Council could no longer afford

As a result of that deal the town council agreed to take on services that Somerset Council could no longer afford to do. Not just services, some staff were also transferred across to Bridgwater Town Council (and we should note it is the same situation in Taunton too).

So for example, the town council is now looking after street cleaning and road sweeping, the management of parks and open spaces, fly-tipping, footpath repairs, market rights, bedding plant provision and carnival clean-ups.

Added to which, some major capital items are also coming under the Town Council’s control, such as the Bridgwater Docks.

The Conservative councillors on Bridgwater Town Council say they oppose the council tax rise. Cllr Diogo Rodrigues noted: “Labour councillors have ignored the struggles of hardworking families, pensioners, and residents on low incomes. They’ve pushed through one of the highest Council Tax rates in the country without listening to the people of Bridgwater.”

Obviously the Labour group disagree and have hit back after a petition was started by local estate agent Ian Bugler to, as he puts it: “demand a public inquiry into Somerset Council’s and Bridgwater Town Council’s manipulation of the principles provided in the report to the House of Commons to increase the precept by 39% to purportedly cover services passed from Somerset Council with no corresponding reduction in Council Tax.”

And this is perhaps the core of the problem. The issue at stake is not so much that Bridgwater Town Council’s precept has gone up.

After all, it is relatively easy to see that if the amount of services a council provides goes up significantly, so does the council tax.

The real issue is that the amount of things that Somerset Council does has necessarily gone down (as the services are passed to the towns) but their council tax continues to rise as well.

In fact, on Monday this week Government announced it had given permission for Somerset Council to put up council tax by 7.5% (2.5% above the national cap) in recognition of the fact that the council is in financial difficulty.

Even this is not enough to balance the books, although Bill Revans noted: “Today’s announcement gives us clarity and we will need to consider the implications before we finalise our budget proposals for debate and decision at Full Council later this month.”

However, the council will not be able to balance the books again without resorting to some more financial engineering.

But all that said, why is it that Somerset Council is doing less and less while charging more and more? The answer unfortunately is historic. Over the 14 years from 2010, Government in Whitehall slashed the amounts given to councils to fund their activities.

why is it that Somerset Council is doing less and less while charging more

In just five years of the so-called austerity government of Conservatives and LibDems from 2010-2015, there were no significant cutbacks in most Whitehall departments. Indeed most departments saw increases.

The only department whose funding was significantly cut was the one which handled local government (the name of the department has changed many times over the past 14 years).

So Department of Health spending rose from £98bn (2010/11) to £111bn (2015/16). Education from £51bn to £53bn, Defence from £24bn to £28bn, Home Office from £9bn to £10bn.

You get the picture. Local government spending in the same period was cut from £30.7bn to £13.2bn.*

In other words the whole problem of austerity was skilfully deflected from central government to local government. We would be the last people to say that local government is ruthlessly efficient and could not be improved.

But no organisation could be expected to see its funding slashed by almost two-thirds in five years and still produce the same levels of services.

Which is why the cash crisis that so many county and unitary councils of all political persuasions are facing today. And why so many town councils are taking up the strain and embracing an opportunity to do more and control more of the services provided to residents.

* Source for 2010 figures: HM Treasury Spending Review published October 2020, source for 2015 figures HM Treasury Budget papers published March 2015

More farce with planning in Frome

Expectations were high for the Area East planning meeting on Tuesday this week where the massive Selwood Garden Development was to be discussed. A plan to build 1,700 homes on prime agricultural land – most of which will not be affordable to local people – was always going to be controversial.

The application has been pulled together by the Land Value Alliance, an organization that seeks to promote sites for development and appears, at least, in Somerset to have a preference for agricultural land. Unlike the present Government, they are not big on brownfield site development.

The application is deeply unpopular with very few local supporters. The story thus far: in December the Area East planning committee voted not to refuse the application, but that they “were minded to refuse it” but wanted more clarification.

The application was due to be the centre point for this meeting with more than 100 pages of a report to look into. And it needed deciding despite the planning officers in their report assuring the committee members that: “the Secretary of State having notified the Council (following referral of the application to the Secretary of State under The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2024) that they do not intend to issue a ‘call-in’ direction under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”

So boys and girls, can you guess what happened next?

Yep, you got it. The Committee meeting was informed that yes the Secretary of State had indeed called the application in. In fact the decision was made the day before the meeting was scheduled to take place.

the Secretary of State had indeed called the application in

When the Secretary of State calls in an application, it will effectively go through an appeal process run by the Planning Inspectorate. However the Secretary of State has not called in the application in the expectation of it being turned down. And although the Inspector will write a report for the Secretary of State with a recommended decision, the Secretary of State does not have to follow that recommendation.

In this case, the Secretary of State raises the main areas worthy of further consideration to be:

1. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for delivering a sufficient supply of homes.

2. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for building a strong, competitive economy.

3. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for Promoting sustainable transport.

4. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies for conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

5. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the development plan for the area.

It promises to be an interesting process. There are usually two sides in an inquiry, the council on the one hand and the applicant on the other. However, with officers of Somerset Council recommending approval in the report, and the applicant obviously lobbying for approval, it is unclear where the opposition will come from.

It will almost certainly be up to the inspector to represent an alternative view to ensure the case is properly examined. How well that role is performed depends on the inspector!

However unlike a planning appeal, because the Secretary of State initiated the proceedings, the local council will not be asked to bear the costs of the inquiry, regardless of the outcome. However costs can be awarded against them if they are deemed to have advanced frivolous legal arguments or behaved unreasonably.

But what role can councillors who usually take decisions on planning play now? They can take part by submitting evidence to the inquiry, but they will be deemed as “Interested Parties” and in all respects given the same access to the inquiry as members of the public.

Credibility gap sees devolution bid fail

A lot of angst will be expended in the days ahead over the Government’s refusal to accept the “Wessex” bid to join the devolution fast track. We have already had one press release from Somerset Council full of wailing and gnashing of teeth. In a joint statement following rejection of the bid the leaders of Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) councils said: “Despite the fact that we felt Government were moving too quickly to deliver devolution, and our discussion about the format of Mayoral Strategic Authority as the most appropriate solution for our region, we worked collaboratively with ministers throughout to deliver a strong proposal. Therefore, the decision not to include Wessex within the Devolution Priority Programme is extremely disappointing.”

Disappointing certainly. Not because we at Somerset Confidential® are massive fans of devolution per se, but because as the council leaders pointed out: “The area could now miss out on essential funding, and combined with the likely defunding of pan-regional partnerships and the substantial reduction in the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.” In short, we’ll get a smaller share of national funds to improve our infrastructure.

But to what extent are the leaders themselves responsible for their own misfortunes? Three councils – Somerset, Wiltshire and Dorset – sent an expression of interest to the Secretary of State in December 2024 followed, on 10 January 2025, by a proposal stating their desire to create a devolved authority with a mayor covering the area governed by the three. The proposal clearly involved some considerable work and planning.

Yet just a week later Glastonbury & Somerton MP Sarah Dyke reported back from a meeting with the Minister of State for Local Government and Devolution, Jim McMahon. She delivered a firm message from her meeting with Mr McMahon that proposals that created “orphans” would not be acceptable. By which he meant any blocs applying for devolution that left single councils without an obvious home.

Jim McMahon - clear warning given

The proposals submitted on 10 January meant that BCP would be left isolated as, potentially, would Swindon Borough Council too.

In the event, BCP voted to join the Wessex proposal on 17 January. But Swindon remained outside the bloc. It may come as a surprise to the council leaders, but surely not to anyone else, that having not met the criteria set by the Minister of State, the proposal was turned down.

Even accepting the last-minute decision of BCP to join in the proposal, it does not inspire confidence that a plan is embedded and co-ordinated when at the very last minute, a couple of weeks before the decision is made, the proposals and Expression of Interest have to be redrafted because the borders have changed.

If that was our initial impression, Secretary of State Angela Rayner confirmed it on Wednesday replying to Sarah Dyke MP in the Commons saying: “The deal she mentions (ie the Wessex one) was not included in this round because it was not developed enough.”

not included in this round because it was not developed enough

Sarah Dyke will be disappointed too, especially having alerted the council leaders to the issue. She is a fan of devolution and said at the time: “I passionately believe in putting more power in the hands of individuals and communities. Devolution is about shifting power out of the centre in Westminster and Whitehall, and ensuring decisions are made for and by the communities they affect.”

It is all very unfortunate, but if we were sat in the Minister’s chair, we’d probably have made the same decision.

A better night for Conservatives

Yesterday there were three elections for town councils in Somerset in Bridgwater, Taunton and Burnham on Sea.

The Conservatives have not had many encouraging elections in our patch of Somerset of late. Losing the council in 2022, all 5 sitting MPs in the General Election, with the consolation prize of a single win in the new seat of Bridgwater for Sir Ashley Fox, all in all the portents have not been good. Nor did they initially look a lot better in the three towns holding by-elections.

Bridgwater Town Council held a by-election for Fairfax Ward. Labour control the town council with 11 councillors to four Conservatives.

The by-election was a three-way fight between the LibDems, Conservatives and Labour in a seat previously held by Richard Morgan. Cllr Morgan had stood as a Labour candidate but after his brushes with the law over a Just Stop Oil protest, sat as an Independent. In 2022 Cllr Morgan was one of two Labour councillors elected finishing just three votes ahead of Conservative Andrew Dingwall.

This time around it didn’t go well for Labour, perhaps reflecting the lack of popularity of the current Government. Labour’s David Solomon ended up a distant third with the Conservative candidate polling double the votes of Pelé Barnes. An unexpected surprise? No one will be admitting that but the Conservatives will be very happy with this result.

The full result was as follows:

• 289 Carole Edmonds (Conservative)

• 133 Pelé Barnes (LibDem)

• 61 David Solomon (Labour)

Over in Burnham and Highbridge Council there was another by-election for Burnham Central Ward. The two other councillors in Burnham Central (the ward elects three councillors in all) are Cllr Ganesh Gudka (LibDem) and the current Mayor Cllr Sharon Perry (LibDem).

This is one of those odd councils where everyone stands on a political platform, but once in the council chamber politics are not apparently used.

So whether it’s relevant or not that there are (if have to look at their register of interests – the website does not give a political make-up) eight Conservatives, six LibDems, two Labour and one Independent councillors, is hard to tell.

Last night’s by-election was a straight fight between Conservatives and LibDems. Here too there was a comprehensive and encouraging win for the Conservatives:

• 262 Paul Mills (Conservative)

• 201 Gregory Broadhurst (LibDems)

And finally Taunton Town Council held a by-election for the Lyngford Ward. Taunton is a pretty solid LibDem council with 19 out of 20 councillors coming from the party. The by-election saw a four-way contest, with Reform standing in the seat for the first time, even so the LibDems expected to win. In 2023 the seat was won by LibDem Simon Clarke with 274 votes from Labour’s Brenda Weston with 172.

To boost their prospects the local LibDem MP joined LibDem candidate Liam Pollard last weekend for a community litter pick at Lyngford Park. Did this do the trick? Who knows but the LibDems had a resounding win, with Reform UK taking second place.

• 221 Liam Pollard (LibDem)

• 118 Jim Langford (Reform UK)

• 67 James Scoins (Conservative)

• 43 Brenda Weston (Labour)

Liam Pollard third from the right wins a seat on Taunton Town Council

Offer received to buy Council site in Taunton

Somerset Council are looking to sell a technology park just off Lisieux Way in Taunton. It is part of a series of asset disposals that the council are undertaking to raise funds to try and close its forecast budget deficit. However it is being very coy about these disposals refusing to reveal if they have been at a profit or loss, either as a full portfolio or as individual assets.

Last year, property consultants Alder King were instructed by the council to dispose of Taunton Technology Park. The park was marketed at an asking price of “in excess of £4m”. The good news is that the agents have had an offer. Inevitably we are not allowed to know what that offer is and, more relevantly, whether it does indeed exceed the £4m asking price.

The technology park comprises three main buildings and two ancillary buildings. In total, the buildings provide 98,435 sq ft of space and occupy a site of 5.95 acres.

Of the three main buildings, one is let to Novanta Technologies UK Ltd and to Assura Aspire Ltd, a FTSE 250 listed real estate investment trust. This latter in turn is sublet to Synlab, who are contracted to provide diagnostic services to the NHS, although they also provide services to other healthcare providers too.

The occupied buildings give a combined annual rental income of £325,141. The other buildings are vacant. Even so a return of just over 8% a year on a £4m outlay is not unattractive, especially with the potential to let a third building and the ancillary buildings too.

One can imagine it would be attractive to a pension fund manager for instance.

At the time it was first marketed, Andrew Maynard, partner at Alder King, said: “The property offers an attractive income stream from Buildings 2 and 3 and offers scope to add further value through proactive asset management. It also has strong development potential for the remaining buildings and land, subject to securing the necessary consents.”

The proof of that particular pudding will be in the amount of the offer received. We’ll soon find out if he was right or not.

Eastover isn’t celebrating

The Celebration mile is causing nothing to celebrate, and says Somerset Councillor for Bridgwater, Leigh Redman, local people are being ignored over and over!

The six-month closure of Eastover in Bridgwater is now a month old. But as traders complain at the impact on their businesses (a petition was launched in November by Mandy Maskell and dutifully ignored by the council) Cllr Redman expresses concerns that residents have not been listened to from the start.

The works are all part of the Celebration Mile, a £9m project to link the station to the docks and to enhance the street scene and improve access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists along the way. The project is part of the Town Deal, a £23.2m package of funds granted to the town by central Government that is expected to bring in a further funding package of over £160m from elsewhere.

Initially, for this stage of works, Eastover was intended to be kept open while work on the Celebration Mile got underway, it would have been under a one way system until the works were completed, allowing contractors to work on the closed sections.

However, as Somerset Council Highways noted, there had been a number of “near misses” involving traffic ignoring the previous one-way system. The new 6 month complete closure was required for contractor safety. They note that without a full closure, however, the works could take up to nine months.

This is going to hit local traders especially hard. One can only wonder why they are not entitled to compensation from the council for the decisions that will impact on their business.

But, as Cllr Redman points out, this might have been predictable. He claims that the council ignored the views of local residents when consulting on a Traffic Order that would dictate the traffic flows around Eastover and over the town bridge once the works are completed.

“the council ignored the views of local residents”

But as Cllr Redman points out, this is only the tip of the one-way iceberg. He has explained to ‘Somerset Confidential’, the one way nightmare is going to get worse, under the current proposals, both East Quay and Salmon Parade are going to be made permanent one-way out of the town. He claims that the council ignored the views of local residents when consulting on a Traffic Order that would dictate the traffic flows around Eastover and over the town bridge once the works are completed.

Once completed Eastover will be a one way street with traffic flowing east to west, from St Johns Street, towards the town bridge. There it will either head over the bridge (2 way) or turn north up East Quay or south down Salmon Parade.

Cllr Redman told us: “One of the elements involved was making the cross roads at town bridge and Eastover ‘safer for pedestrians’, mainly by changing traffic flows and creating new one way elements. For many local people this is very controversial.”

The initial consultation resulted in just two responses. When Cllr Redman suggested a longer period of consultation, the council agreed and he lobbied local people to respond. This time 48 responses were received. Not huge, but at least some feedback to work with.

Except that – by and large – the feedback has been ignored. The council have given responses to a series of questions raised by Cllr Redman about the consultation, but went ahead and did what they always intended doing anyway.

Celebration Mile plans for Eastover

For instance Cllr Redman and many local people expressed concern that Clink, Cannon roundabout, Broadway & Monmouth street would all see increased traffic as a result of the proposals. The council acknowledged this would be the case, but suggested traffic use would modify itself over time with fewer cars and less pollution. An interesting idea but no facts or data were provided to support it.

Cllr Redman also expressed concern that the proposed one way system would mean when the new ‘Centre for excellence’ on the site of the old Bridgwater hospital opened on Salmon Parade, ambulances & patient transport would be not be able to access Salmon Parade from Broadway but would need to travel through Cranleigh gardens, along St John street and along Eastover, effectively three sides of a square.

Cllr Redman says: “the project has caused problems from the start, communication has been awful and the end result with East Quay and Salmon parade will cause more traffic problems getting through Bridgwater, this has been heightened since Somerset Council chose to move the Cannon roundabout improvement funds out to Dunball roundabout!”

Bridgwater’s Conservative MP Sir Ashley Fox has also raised concerns, mainly around the way the project has been handled. He was quoted as saying: “I have been in regular contact with traders in Eastover since the roadworks commenced and have heard directly from many about the significant challenges they face. While efforts to regenerate the town are welcome and could bring long-term benefits, the way this project has been handled has not been welcomed.”

---

Somerset Confidential® is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Why not gift a subscription as a present for a friend or family member? You can do that here: