Somerset planning enforcement row erupts at council

By Laura Linham 27th Jul 2026

Local News by Laura Linham 1 hour ago

Somerset's planning enforcement problems spilled into the council chamber in Bridgwater on Tuesday, 15 July, as Conservatives accused the authority of letting rule-breakers chip away at public trust. They called for a full review of the service, but the ruling Liberal Democrats blocked the move, saying the problem was already being dealt with.

The row matters because enforcement is where planning stops being paperwork and starts becoming real life. When conditions are ignored, deadlines drift or unauthorised works are left unresolved, residents are often left asking the same blunt question: what was the point of all those planning rules in the first place?

Somerset Council has already admitted that its enforcement service is not where it wants it to be. In January, the authority said it was relying on agency staff from a district council in Staffordshire to carry out much of the work, underlining the pressure on a service that is often invisible until something goes wrong on someone's doorstep.

Councillor Andy Dingwall, Conservative member for Bridgwater East and Bawdrip, used the full council meeting to argue that enforcement had to be taken seriously before more damage was done to the council's reputation. His division includes Westonzoyland Airfield, where he said planning conditions had been "routinely ignored".

He told councillors to imagine a village where everyone had agreed to put their fences in the same place. If one resident pushed a fence out by a foot and nothing happened, he said, others would soon follow until breaking the rules became normal.

Mr Dingwall said: "There is a real risk that this is where we find ourselves in Somerset today. In the worst cases, such as those on Westonzoyland Airfield in my own patch, we see conditions put in place routinely ignored."

He added that communities became frustrated when they saw large companies treating rules as optional. The Conservative motion called for a review of the council's enforcement policy, including whether powers were being used appropriately and consistently, whether current standards were sufficient and whether extra measures were needed.

Councillor Barry Clarke, Conservative member for Mendip Central and East, seconded the motion and said rural communities were "bearing the brunt" of the current shortcomings. He said he and fellow councillor Philip Ham represented 15 parishes, ten of which had current enforcement issues.

Mr Clarke said two cases were so old that the time to deal with them had expired. He added: "In one of my parishes, we have people living off-grid, building whatever they wish — there is no attempt at getting any formal position whatsoever."

Councillor Tom Power, Conservative member for Wincanton and Bruton, said enforcement was becoming "a toxic issue". He warned that if enforcement was not visible enough to act as a deterrent, it risked setting a dangerous precedent.

Councillor Martin Wale, Conservative member for Chard North, described planning enforcement as a "Cinderella service". But, in one of the sharper lines of the debate, he added that "the Fairy Godmother isn't going to appear with any review".

Council leader Bill Revans said he agreed with the sentiment behind the motion, but argued that another review was not the answer. He said the council already recognised the reputational damage caused by weak enforcement and the impact this had on confidence in the wider planning system.

Mr Revans said a proposal had come forward on 19 May to begin work on a business plan for improving the service. He said vacancies, complex cases and the volume of complaints had all added pressure, while some developers were "testing the boundaries" of what they could get away with.

He told councillors: "Taking action doesn't mean having a review, because I don't think policy is the problem here — the problem is resources. We need to get the service into a position where it can implement what is already there."

Mr Revans said a review could slow the work already under way. He argued that the business case should come forward, go to the relevant scrutiny committee and then be considered by the council's executive.

The Conservative motion was rejected after the allotted half-hour debate.

Original reporting: LDRS