An investigation into Midsomer Norton Town Council has returned to public attention following a recent article in the Midsomer Norton and Radstock Journal.
The article referred to the report when discussing the Town Council’s decision to end funding for Midsomer Norton Community Trust in February.
Following complaints, the Journal published a correction:
“Our recent report Midsomer Norton Community Trust: unearthing the facts (16.07.2026) incorrectly attributed findings of the ‘Report into the Effectiveness of Midsomer Norton Town Council’ specifically to the Community Trust when they applied to the Town Trust, the Community Trust, and the Recreation Trust collectively. We apologise for the error.”
However, the investigation and subsequent report into Midsomer Norton Town Council raises several important findings.
Why was the investigation commissioned?
The investigation into Midsomer Norton Town Council followed the resignation of the Town Clerk in April 2024, during a period of high staff and Councillor turnover.
Between January 2023 and May 2024 there had been four staff resignations, four Councillor resignations and several other Councillors choosing not to stand for re-election. The Town Council had also employed five Clerks in just under two years.
The investigation’s stated purpose was to examine the Town Council’s effectiveness and identify factors contributing to staff turnover, including employee satisfaction, workplace dynamics, civility and respect, and the role of the Staffing Committee.
The report did not investigate Midsomer Norton Community Trust.
How was evidence gathered?
The investigator interviewed nine current Councillors, three serving staff, five former Councillors, three former staff members, two former locum clerks and the Community Trust Manager.
No residents were interviewed, and the investigation did not include a review of Council or Trust policies, procedures or documentation. Interviews used standard questions but were largely conversational.
Why was the report not published?
The report was discussed in a confidential session of Full Council on 2 September 2024, with the press and public excluded. Councillors voted to keep the full report confidential.
The Council instead published the 17 recommendations, the Locum Clerk’s comments and agreed outcomes. Redacted copies of the full report were later released following Freedom of Information requests.
It has been reported elsewhere that the report described the Town Council’s culture as “toxic, aggressive and confrontational”, with concerns also raised about staff feeling bullied by some Councillors.
The Locum Clerk’s outcomes can be viewed at:
https://msn-tc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Investigation-Report-Outcomes.pdf
What did the recommendations cover?
Most of the 17 recommendations concerned the Town Council’s own conduct, staffing, governance and leadership.
They included:
- Councillor training on conduct,
- employer responsibilities of Councillors,
- applying the Nolan Principles (Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership),
- improved chairing and meeting conduct;
- better knowledge of Standing Orders;
- team-building;
- stronger leadership;
- recruitment of a permanent Clerk;
- improved staff accommodation;
- changes to staffing and employment procedures;
- reviews of governing documents and financial regulations;
- better community engagement;
- improved budget preparation;
Only two recommendations related directly to Trusts and grant funding:
- reviewing the role and purpose of the three associated Trusts with appropriate legal advice, and
- reviewing the Council’s grant-aid process.
There was no recommendation to transfer community-event delivery from Midsomer Norton Community Trust to direct Town Council control, nor was there any recommendation concerning supposed resident confusion over who organised events.
What outcomes did the Council agree?
The Council agreed to implement the recommendations in accordance with the Locum Clerk’s comments and suggested actions:
The Locum Clerk noted that many comments in the report appeared to be opinions unsupported by precise documented facts, although that did not necessarily make them invalid.
The agreed actions included:
- Councillor training,
- improved meeting conduct and chairing,
- clearer leadership,
- regular meetings between senior Officers and committee Chairs,
- improved staff accommodation,
- stronger HR arrangements,
- staff appraisals,
- reviews of Standing Orders and Financial Regulations,
- improved community engagement
- earlier budget preparation.
For the Trusts, the agreed actions were:
- to prepare a briefing explaining the legal status and relationships between the Council and the Trusts
- to review regular charitable grants during the budget process.
Which Trusts were of concern?
The Locum Clerk stated:
“The only Trusts that are of concern (in relation to management) are where it is Sole Trustee.”
The Town Council is sole trustee of:
Midsomer Norton Town Trust, which manages the Town Hall, Somer Centre, Orchard Hall and other assets,
Midsomer Norton Recreation Ground Trust, which manages West Clewes recreation ground and associated facilities.
Midsomer Norton Community Trust is an independent charity and the Town Council is not its sole trustee.
The Locum Clerk also stated:
“It is not for the Council to ‘dissolve’ a charity, it is for the Charity to decide its own future.”
What happened next?
A subsequent Locum Town Clerk’s report on the relationship between the Council and the Trusts was considered by Full Council.
Councillors agreed that a workshop or working group should examine the report, relevant guidance and legislation, the benefits of partnership working with local charities and the Council’s responsibilities as sole trustee.
No published record has been identified showing either the Clerk’s report or that the workshop took place.
What changed for the Community Trust?
In October 2025 the Town Council introduced a new Grant Policy containing a section on “Strategic and Larger Grants”, which specifically cited Midsomer Norton Community Trust as an example of an organisation delivering significant ongoing benefit to the town.
The policy stated that such grants would be considered by Full Council and reviewed annually through the budget-setting process.
There was nothing in the grant policy indicating that the Council was considering ending the Community Trust’s role in delivering events or replacing it with direct Council delivery.
The Community Trust subsequently applied for funding under that policy in November 2025.
What happened to the grant application?
The Journal article suggested that allegedly missing or redacted documents contributed to the decision not to fund the Community Trust.
However, before the Trust’s grant application was considered on 19 January, Full Council considered the Town Clerk’s report on the “Future Management and Delivery of Community Events” and selected a “hybrid” model involving Council delivery and Community Trust partnership.
The Trust’s grant application was subsequently superseded and was never considered by Full Council. The available records therefore indicate that the alleged deficiencies in supporting documents did not have any effect on the funding decision.
The Community Trust was not awarded any money under the “hybrid” model, the Town Council would retain the budget for events.
What did the Internal Audit say?
The Journal article also suggested that the Council’s Internal Audit raised concerns about Midsomer Norton Community Trust.
Neither the 2025/26 Internal Audit nor the previous year’s report contains any recommendations relating to the Community Trust.
The Trust-related recommendations instead concern the Town Trust and Recreation Ground Trust, where the Town Council acts as sole trustee.
The Internal Audit called for an urgent review of the Council’s sole-trustee responsibilities, governance and finances, and said grant requests from those charities should be supported by clear financial analysis.
The audit report also recorded that the Town Trust’s annual return was filed 109 days late and the Recreation Trust’s return 293 days late.
What now for the Town Council?
Many Councillors who served during the period examined by the investigation remain in office. The investigation and its agreed outcomes therefore remain as relevant now as they did when the report was written.
The Town Council remains sole trustee of the Town Trust and Recreation Ground Trust and is currently considering the Internal Audit recommendations relating to those Trusts.
The Town Council are now responsible for the direct delivery of community events.
