Somerset this week: 9 February
Somerset Council tax, pollution near Crewkerne, Chard Town Council, bus talk and farewell sister.....
Dear readers
Today’s Somerset Confidential® is free for our all of our subscribers. We hope you find it interesting. If you’d like to get more material like this you can subscribe for it here:
At Somerset Confidential® our work is a public service – and that means you get a lot of our journalism free.
But like any business, we need to pay our bills. We’d also like to do more reporting. But more reporting (and let’s face it, there needs to be more reporting in our county) costs too.
The compromise is this. We continue to produce our public service journalism for free every week with our core virtues at the heart of it: questioning, investigating, analysing.
You can get this service with a free subscription.
But we also offer a paid subscription service that enables us to cover the longer in depth articles that cost more to research and produce.
Our paid subscription service costs £30 per annum. That’s 58p per week, or the price of a bag of pasta. And for that we’ll throw in some additional benefits.
Read two extra articles a month (That’s value for money right there.)
Get access to our back catalogue
Comment – have your say on anything we write.
And experience the satisfaction of supporting the most innovative, public-service journalism project in Somerset.
We like to think of it like this. Support us – and you are supporting a better governed Somerset. You can join and support us here….
Thank you
Andrew Lee - editor
Somerset this week: 9 February
No to more council tax
On Wednesday an almost interminable (over 5 hours and counting) Somerset Council Executive meeting discussed the fallout of Michael Gove’s decision to refuse Somerset Council permission to raise council tax by 10%.
As a reminder, councils are allowed to raise their council tax by up to 4.99% for next year without being obliged by law to hold a referendum. To go above 4.99% and not hold a referendum, you need the Secretary of State’s approval.
To go above 4.99% and not hold a referendum, you need the Secretary of State’s approval
Of course Somerset Council could still hold a referendum. But that is a very risky enterprise. Firstly there is the cost of the exercise, usually in excess of £1m. Then there is the issue of whether you’ll get the public vote. You could shell out on the referendum and get turned down flat.
Instead it was the Secretary of State who turned them down flat. That said fallout wasn’t as grim as it might have been. So what can they do?
In a nutshell, they’ll now simply capitalise more of their revenue expenditure, to the tune of £36.9m. That is instead of funding £16m of the budget gap via a council tax hike and £20.9m via capitalisation. The point of capitalising revenue expenditure, is you can then borrow money against it.
Of course it will help balance the budget, but the interest you have to pay on the borrowings still has to be paid for. Not just now, but long into the future too.
Meanwhile the s151 officer, Jason Vaughan is making optimistic noises for 2024/25, albeit he seems to think the filing of a s114 notice will surely follow for 2025/26. But as by then there will be a new government with, potentially a new view of local government finance, it is a case of one step at a time.
The curiosity is that no-one thought to report an interesting fact. As we have often said, Somerset is far from alone in suffering financial problems. Somerset Council was in the end one of five that asked Secretary of State Gove for permission to raise council tax by 10% to balance the budget.
But the other four were all approved and only Somerset’s application was rejected. Why we may well ask? The lucky four, Thurrock, Slough, Woking and Birmingham will be able to raise council tax by up to 10% in 2024-25.
Is this a clear case of political manoeuvring by a party in government desperate to cling on wherever it can?
Well here are some interesting facts.
Thurrock is a hung council where the Conservatives are the largest party, Slough is in the same boat. A leg up from government would be a shot in the arm for the local Conservatives.
And even in Woking although the council is run by the LibDems, the local MP since 2010 has been the Conservative Jonathan Lord. More than that, it has been Conservative since the constituency was created in 1950. Mr Lord’s majority at the last election was just under 10,000.
These days that might look like a seat at risk. Perhaps the sort of place where it is worth having the Conservative government be seen to ride to the rescues of the local council, even if it is run by LibDems.
Birmingham though is harder to fathom at face value. There’s no getting around the fact that Birmingham is a Labour controlled authority and 8 out of the 10 MPs for Birmingham are also Labour.
However the city council has some mitigating factors. Although the deficit is £87m, much of that arises through a series of equal pay claims whose quantity is still not certain but could run to hundreds of millions of pounds. For a council the size of Birmingham to declare bankruptcy and then be underfunded and ultimately left in the hands of government commissioners rather than councillors is not a good look.
Birmingham got its money.
Which leaves us to ask why not Somerset? The Secretary of State has been unusually quiet on the subject. He is not by nature a reticent man.
However it is a fact that Somerset Council has only been in existence for a year. Mr Gove probably feels it should have been able to take care of itself. He is probably asking how a council could go in the space of 12 months from apparently solvent to having a £100m+ hole in their accounts.
His calculation is presumably that the money can be found in other ways. And as the Executive Meeting on Wednesday proved, it turns out they can still balance the books without the council tax rise.
As to any political calculations central government may have made, they probably thought it wasn’t worth it. It is starting to look as if, Ian Liddell Grainger aside, there’s a danger of a LibDem clean sweep at the General Election with maybe a Labour win in Bridgwater and a three way fight with Greens, LibDems and Labour in Frome and East Somerset.
Perhaps even Gove realises there’s little to be salvaged politically by lending a helping hand?
Farewell sister
A sad note was struck at the start of this week when we lost our sister. Well not literally or terminally you understand.
And yet ever since Somerset Confidential® started out on its journey, we have had The Leveller alongside us covering the same patch with similar but different reportage, every step of the way.
But now our paths are parted. The Leveller® has passed on to a new owner and Andrew Lee has stepped down as editor of the paper where he had been for 14 years. Instead he will concentrate all his energies on editing Somerset Confidential.
However it is good to see that The Leveller® will continue on into the future and everyone at Somerset Confidential® wishes The Leveller® well as it sails off into the sunset.
None of which will deflect from our goal here at Somerset Confidential®. That is to build a news channel with a team of experienced contributors that focuses on the same inquisitive and analytical style of journalism that The Leveller® developed so successfully.
We hope Leveller® readers will continue to support the paper in the future, but that you’ll also see what we are up to at Somerset Confidential® and give us a go too!
Double speak about the buses
A couple of times a year Buses for Somerset meet with Somerset Council and passenger groups in a forum known as the Bus Advisory Board. They discuss the performance of the service and the future of it. Following the last one a lot of noise has been generated over the fate of four vital bus routes in Somerset:
Route 25: Taunton – Dulverton via Wiveliscombe, Cotford St Luke, Milverton.
Route 28: Taunton - Minehead via Bishops Lydeard, Williton, Watchet.
Route 54: Taunton - Yeovil via Langport, Somerton.
Route 58: Yeovil – Wincanton.
The problem is that Buses for Somerset (all part of First Group) have made it clear over the past year that without financial support from Somerset Council the four bus routes will be closed down.
As Somerset Council prepared its budget, desperately trying to avoid bankruptcy, it became clear the subsidies for the bus routes would not continue beyond April this year.
The message coming from that last Bus Advisory Board meeting was that the routes would therefore close.
Not everyone was happy to take that message lying down. “Gideon Amos (the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Taunton and Wellington) has vowed to help save four threatened bus routes in the county” thundered a press release yesterday. How exactly was less clear. Especially as the LibDem candidate will be talking to a LibDem administration at County Hall. An administration that has already said there’s no money.
What is Mr Amos going to do as he roars into action for us? How is the mighty hammer of the Tories going to make a difference and bring those buses back into service for decades to come?
Lie down across the A378 in protest? Write letters to the Chancellor? Organise local people in a campaign to refuse to pay their taxes? No. He tells us: “I’ve spoken with our LibDem team on Somerset Council.”
Powerful stuff. When the Somerset Council Executive discussed the budget on Wednesday, it didn’t seem to have changed its mind….there was still no money for the four bus routes. Maybe a word in the ear from Mr Amos is all that’s required?
Let us not forget First Group who actually run the buses.
In the aftermath of the Bus Advisory Board they have been in damage limitation mode: “At today’s Bus Advisory Board with Somerset Council, we were asked to outline what our network could look like from April 2024 if the current funding we receive to support services 25, 28, 54 and 58 were to be withdrawn.”
The next bit is pretty much as you would expect: “Last July, Somerset Council agreed on a funding package that helped to bridge the gap between the operational costs and the revenue, and since then, this has allowed the four routes to remain as they are today. In that period, we’ve seen passenger growth but unfortunately, not to the extent that would negate the ongoing need for financial support.”
That’s pretty clear, no funding no service. Some words follow around how much they value the social amenity of the services. This we regard as an untruth. If you value something, you don’t close it down because it is loss making. It is our view this is just playing games with words. What do you think?
no final decisions have been made yet on any of the four routes
But so sensitive is the subject that they still say: “It is important to note that no final decisions have been made yet on any of the four routes.” That may be true, but only because no decision has been taken. Everybody knows what the decision will be if no subsidy is forthcoming from Somerset Council.
Meanwhile Barry West the aptly named RMT Union organiser for our region was also up in arms: “The (First Bus) announcement has huge implications for the travelling public, many of whom live remotely, the elderly, vulnerable, disabled, school children and those who may use public transport to get to and from work.” Yes but also for his members too. He adds: “Our members are very concerned also because the impact and implications for their future is also at stake.”
It is not just the current announcement that should worry us, as Mr West points out, it is, if you’ll forgive the pun, the direction of travel. He observes: “There has been an emerging pattern that has been concerning us for quite some time with the closure of depots elsewhere that First Bus operated from and most recently and close by was Bridgewater. Then the announcement about the demolition of Yeovil Bus engineering depot followed, our members and the RMT have been raising concerns with the company about the future of Yeovil and what was suggested by many suggesting it seemed like asset stripping but there has always been a constant flow of denial from First Bus.”
Somerset Bus Partnership is holding a rally in support of the threatened bus services in Yeovil’s town centre. If you’d like to attend. The rally takes place this Saturday (February 10th) at 11:00am at The Borough (next to the War Memorial / Café Nero, 17 High Street) in Yeovil.
Somerset Bus Partnership Co Chair, Peter Travis, said: “Whilst we hope negotiations that are now happening between Somerset Council and First Bus will reduce the impact of these proposed cuts, now is the time to hold a rally to show how important these routes are to the people of Yeovil and to neighbouring Somerset towns.”
In fact more and more people in Somerset are wondering what exactly they get from First Group in the way of bus services. They are poorly integrated with other forms of public transport, increasingly don’t provide a decent service to our rural communities and don’t make money.
Realistically as it becomes clear that First Group can’t run the buses without large public subsidies, we have to ask whether:
a) it is time to find an operator who can run a decent service at a reasonable cost or
b) we should put the whole lot back into public ownership via the sort of franchising service they have in Manchester (which should that be of interest, you can read all about here .
Pollution on tributary of River Parrett
The presence of phosphates on the Levels has shut down new build housing developments in South Somerset of late. Ever since Natural England downgraded the state of the Somerset Levels and Moors to “unfavourable declining”, new development is only permitted if phosphate mitigation is provided. This essentially means all new development must be phosphate neutral.
The flaw in the argument being it means things cannot get worse, but equally, are unlikely to get better. Simply that the level of phosphates on the Levels will stay the same.
Except that there are two main sources of phosphate pollution. On the one hand sewage from new housing developments, on the other agricultural effluent.
There has been very little in the way of new rules to limit or improve the state of agricultural pollution on the Levels.
Yesterday the Environment Agency announced a successful prosecution of a farmer in Haselbury Plucknett that brought the point home. In 2019 the Environment Agency had noted that silage stored at F.A.W. Bakers Kingston Farm Ltd’s Rushywood Farm was non compliant. The farm were given advice on storing silage and how to avoid a pollution incident.
That advice was not followed. The farm also failed to notify the Environment Agency when it started construction of a “silage clamp” as required by law. Silage clamps are concrete panel structures that act as a wall for silage pits in which grass, maize or whole crop wheat is stored. When constructed properly it should prevent leakage into the wider environment.
In February 2022 Environment Agency officers were called to Small Brook after receiving a report of sewage fungus in the watercourse. Field tests and samples confirmed a significant drop in water quality.
The source of the pollution was traced to a leaking silage clamp on Rushywood Farm. Silage effluent was leaking out from a large silage clamp, pooling in the field and then overflowing into the ditch and into Small Brook. Sewage fungal growth was noted on the entire length of the Small Brook, a stretch of over 800m. Small Brook runs northwards along the edge of Haselbury Plucknett until its confluence with the larger Broad River.
The significance of this is that as Small Brook flows into Broad River, Broad River in turn flows into the River Parrett between West Chinnock and Merriot. Once pollution enters the river system it is easy for it to spread rapidly along water courses.
F.A.W. Bakers Kingston Farm Ltd admitted two charges relating to causing pollution at Taunton Magistrates Court this week. The company was fined a total of £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,220.
The company was fined a total of £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,220
Following the verdict Senior Environment Agency officer, Dave Womack, said: “The company had been given clear advice and guidance on what they needed to do to improve the silage making areas comply with regulations that have been in place for over 30 years. If the new silage clamp had been installed with perimeter effluent channels on all sides, or if the Agency had been notified of its construction, as required by law, this pollution event could easily have been prevented. It was reckless to ignore the construction standards and the advice given previously.“
Chard oh Chard…
There’s barely a month goes by when Chard does not seem to get itself in the news. And all too often that is not in a good way. It is said that Paddy Ashdown, MP for Yeovil, a constituency that includes Chard, had something to say on the subject. Reflecting on his time as the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, dealing with warring Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, he apparently muttered something to the effect that it was a doddle compared with sorting out politics in Chard.
Chaos still reigns.
The last Chard Town Council meeting on Tuesday saw Deputy Chair of the council, Claire Brown, resign and the meeting had two items that were held in camera. The first related to Culturally Chard, the second related to the Rolley Report into bullying at the council.
We are told the reason that the public had to be excluded is that potential legal action was involved in one or both of the items. And that they related to sensitive personal information.
The Rolley Report does indeed contain sensitive information as it names three councillors involved in bullying behaviour. But as the alleged purpose of the agenda item was to “agree to undertake a review of the Rolley report, with a timeline for completion” then there was no need to discuss the content of the report. There was therefore no legitimate reason to hold an item of the highest public interest, in camera.
There is also considerable public interest and indeed very substantial sums of public money involved in “making a decision regarding the future administration and involvement of the town council in Culturally Chard, including any outstanding grant funding.”
Again it is hard to see any legitimate reason for holding the item in camera. Unless of course one of the councillors was threatening legal action in either or both cases. If that were to be the case, then surely the councillor threatening legal action should have been excluded (as a blatant conflict of interest) and not the public.
We can only guess. We did of course contact Chard Town Council on Tuesday asking for an explanation of the exclusion of the press and public, but as of the date of the publication of this newsletter, had received nothing by way of response.
We hope you have enjoyed reading Somerset Confidential®. If you enjoy reading our specials why not gift someone you know a subscription to Somerset Confidential®?
To read more of our journalism don’t forget to subscribe!
Finally if you enjoyed this edition, please feel free to share it……
Sorry to hear that you and The Leveller are parting, Andrew. Let's hope the new owners do as good a job of finding the truth behind the PR releases.
Re Michael Gove, I'm told he owns a property in Somerset. Perhaps he can't afford an extra 5% on his second home? Or maybe he can't face his neighbours?
It certainly isn't deliberate, it is simply where the stories turn up. That said,, I have to say there have been plenty of stories from Mendip in the last month. Just checking back: Wells featured in 2 February, Shepton Mallet, Frome and Wells on 26 January, all parts of Somerset were included in our election update on 19 January, Shepton, Wells and Frome on 12 January.