Somerset Council faces a critical challenge as it tries to balance demands for increased GP funding with the need to deliver affordable housing. A councillor has cautioned that pushing developers for higher financial contributions for local health services could undermine affordable housing projects across the region.
When new housing developments are approved, Somerset Council enters into Section 106 agreements with developers. These legal agreements require developers to contribute financially toward local infrastructure, which includes building new GP surgeries or expanding existing ones. The NHS Somerset determines the contribution amounts by calculating the expected increase in patient numbers and the capacity of nearby GP surgeries.
Liz Browne of Bridgwater Without Parish Council criticized recent funding decisions, accusing Somerset Council and NHS Somerset of allowing developers to reduce their contributions due to viability concerns. However, Councillor Sarah Wakefield, responsible for adults services, housing, and homelessness, countered that demanding more from developers risks undermining affordable housing supply.
READ MORE: Dunelm Yeovil Store Reopens After Major Fire with New Cafe and Expanded Departments
READ MORE: Person Injured in Racially Aggravated Assault in Bath Car Park
Speaking at the council’s planning and transport policy executive sub-committee meeting, Wakefield emphasized the difficult trade-offs involved. “The more claims you make on the developer, the fewer affordable homes you will get. We need to be careful in how we approach this,” she said. She explained that excessive demands often lead developers to cut back on affordable housing to meet other obligations, effectively “kicking the legs out from underneath” affordable housing efforts.
Council planning officer Andre Sestini noted that the council ultimately decides on Section 106 contributions and acknowledged that there may be cases where no additional contributions are justified due to sufficient existing demand, though these are increasingly rare.
Councillor Mike Rigby highlighted the public concern over GP surgery funding, advocating for a clear, accessible explanation of how developer contributions are calculated and allocated. This transparency, he suggested, would help residents better understand the balance between new housing development and health service provision.
It’s important to note that funding from developers is restricted to capital projects like constructing or expanding GP facilities. Operational costs, such as salaries for medical staff, remain the responsibility of the NHS.
Councillor Helen Kay raised the issue of existing surgeries having capacity but lacking funding to hire enough doctors, exacerbating appointment shortages despite recent expansions. She questioned whether the community infrastructure levy (CIL) could offer a solution, as CIL funds can be pooled and used more flexibly across Somerset compared to Section 106 contributions, which are site-specific.
Kate Murdoch, the council’s planning policy manager, clarified that while CIL funds can finance infrastructure expansion, they cannot cover ongoing revenue costs like staff salaries—a constraint linked to broader NHS funding policies rather than local authority control.
Alison Blom-Cooper, chief planning officer, summed up the dilemma: “There’s only one cake, and how you slice it up doesn’t depend on whether the funding is from Section 106 or CIL.” The council must carefully allocate limited resources to meet competing needs for affordable homes and adequate healthcare facilities in Somerset’s growing communities.