ONE SOMERSET OR A STRONGER SOMERSET?

As part of the ongoing debate in relation to the Future of Local Government in Somerset, the release of the business case prepared on behalf of the four district councils this last week has, as might be expected, been the cause of much interest. 

With few other commitments over the bank holiday weekend, I settled down to review the 103-page document.  

Having now fully considered this latest ‘business case’, with South Somerset being the lead authority for the district argument, I have been left with a strong sense of foreboding.  

Whatever one’s views on whether Somerset should become a one or two unitary authority, all of us involved with local government pretty much agree on two things. Firstly, there are five keys areas within the county where we do not perform as well as others, and secondly, if we wish for the lives of those who choose to live here to improve, then things must change. All that is understood. However, what there is not, anywhere in this documentation, is an acknowledgment that the districts are as much responsible for where we find ourselves economically and socially as the County Council.  

At the SSDC full council meeting in Feb. the option of a unitary was dismissed out of hand, with a focus on ‘collaboration and cooperation’ being the preferred option. I argued then that there has been plenty of opportunity for our local authorities to work together, but each, continue working with their own ‘silo’ mentality. 

For me, what is so evident in this current piece of documentation is its total lack of professionalism. Notwithstanding the tight timescale to produce it, it has clearly not been proof-read. The language used is often cumbersome, and full of ‘buzz’ words. In addition to the considerable amount of repetition, taking up as much as one third of the entire document, the number of errors littered throughout its glossy pages (typographically, grammatically, in sentence structure, omissions and spelling mistakes) are truly shocking. One of the most shameful sentences refers to the Heart of the South West Local Economic Partnership; it is actually Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership. This is a basic schoolboy error. 

Such a poorly produced document concerning something so important can leave us with little faith in those purporting to bring about the necessary changes to ‘level up’ our county.  

What I want to know is who hired P A Consulting Ltd., and how much of our tax-payers money were they paid to produce something that to put it kindly, is so amateurish. 

Communities are promised ‘greater power and control devolved to local people’. Not if the current planning reforms at SSDC are anything to go by, where it is now almost impossible to contact a planning officer direct, and those without internet access are left behind. Amongst local residents, there is a real fear about proposals to give more power to parish and town councils they will be expected to take on more responsibility, but with little expectation of any additional funding.    

Much is made of ensuring that services provided by local government remain ‘modern, responsive, efficient, close, accessible and accountable to people’. Ask any one of those I am contacted by on a weekly basis and they will refute this robustly.  

In the options given, ‘C’ is listed as ‘Stronger Somerset’, whilst Option ‘D’ states ‘county unitary’, rather than One Somerset, clearly implying a county takeover bid.  

Much is made of transforming the way we work, but few of us will forget the failures of South Somerset‘s transformation programme, or the complete disaster that incurred when West Somerset and Taunton Deane merged.  

Both Glastonbury Festival and Bridgwater Carnival are mentioned several times. Whilst yes, they are key attractions, these are just once a year events, not forming part of the day-to-day lives of the vast majority of us.  

Likewise, the success of Hinkley Point is cited. All very exciting for the economy, until further on in the document it is blamed for the rise in house prices in that area. 

When it comes to the funding of two unitary authorities, rather than one, the cost of setting up two is said to be ‘marginally’ more costly, but little consideration is given to the ongoing costs of running two authorities. 

Our ageing population also comes in for some stick. There are just too many of us down here, and we live too long. We are not economically active, push house prices up, and are a drain on health services, so we can expect ‘prevention interventions’ to be put in place to keep us healthy and out of hospital. Perhaps euthanasia will help? 

In Somerset we have a ‘very low comparative council tax base’ when compared with areas such as Surrey (hardly a fair comparison). One reason given for this is the six years of council tax freeze; for which read, an increase in council tax in the near future. 

Forget rural tranquillity. Despite our crowded roads, it is pointed out several times that our population density is too low when compared with other parts of the country. However, we can be rest assured that communities will be involved in designing and delivering services that are tailored to local needs. Try telling that to the those I represent.  

In assessing options against critical success factors (3.4) building on a ‘track record of commercial investment’ forms the approach to improving housing and economic prosperity. Whilst I cannot speak for the other districts, SSDCs track record in this respect is hardly something to be proud of. 

Under the Quality Assessment Summary (3.5) the scoring mechanism used is scaled from low= 3; medium = 5; high = 10. Why then are scores of 5 given a ‘high’ on the critical success factor scale? This lack of attention to detail is worrying.  

Overall, although this document, with its jazzy coloured charts, may look impressive on the surface, in making such an important decision in relation to the future shape of our county and its governance, we must all learn to read between the lines and challenge what we are being told.  

Not once is there anything about ‘how’ any of these reforms may be achieved.  

The proverb ‘fine words butter no parsnips’ readily springs to mind.