Letter sent to Cllr Mike Rigby, 7th March 2026

Please see below a letter, which we have today sent to Councillor Mike Rigby, Somerset Council Portfolio Holder for Lead Member for Economic Development Planning and Assets, regarding the Council decision to close the permissive path and fence off the public footpath in Packsaddle Community Fields.

Dear Cllr Rigby

We (People for Packsaddle) were shocked and, frankly, extremely angry, to receive yesterday’s email from John Kulasek (copied below) confirming that the Council has decided to effectively close Packsaddle Community Fields to the public next week by closing the permissive footpath that has been in place for decades, and fencing in the public right of way.

You had previously assured me that you would give me a response to our legal opinion that we sent you in November, so it was extremely disappointing to receive Mr Kulasek’s email without People for Packsaddle having heard anything further from you. 

Given your duty as an elected councillor to represent the interests of residents, I respectfully ask that you now respond to the following important questions as a matter of urgency as they are in the public interest. I have copied in our local councillors and MP who I know are equally keen to hear your responses.

1. In his communication, Mr Kulasek states that the Council must “fully support and aid the developer in its pursuit of planning permission, or it will face challenge for breach of contract”. Please can you share the Council’s legal advice upon which this conclusion was drawn. Given the magnitude of this decision for local residents, it is vital that the Council is fully transparent on the basis for its decision making and the legal advice it received. 
2. We provided the Council a detailed barrister’s legal opinion which concluded “there is a good argument that, properly construed, clause 4.10 does not oblige the Council to carry out the Proposed Works”. Why was our legal opinion dismissed?
3. The Council’s option agreement with LiveWest obliges it to use “reasonable endeavours to assist the developer in obtaining planning permission and in the developer pursuing any appeal”. Please confirm why the Council believes that removing public access to Packsaddle Community Fields after decades of public use constitutes “reasonable endeavours to assist the developer in obtaining planning permission”. This is important given that our legal opinion concluded that it was “highly doubtful that the Proposed Works would have any material impact on the contractual object of clause 4.10 – securing planning permission for residential development of the site”.
4. At last year’s planning appeal hearing, the Council’s own barrister, Killian Garvey, stated in his closing statement to the Planning Inspector that “just as the Council has not taken any action on the ground to dissuade members of the public from using the entire Site, neither would they be likely to do so in the event the appeal is dismissed”. Has the Council considered the impact of directly contravening a statement it made in front of a public enquiry?
5. Has the Council considered whether it would be in breach of wildlife statutory provisions (ie interference with bats) if it erects the fencing? If so, can we see its advice on why it would not breach those provisions?
6. Has the Council considered the Planning Inspector’s statement in his planning appeal decision that erecting fencing on the site “would conflict with its listing of the site as an Asset of Community Value”?
7. Has the Council considered the impact that closing the fields would have on the Air Ambulance service which sometimes lands there?
8. What is the basis for LiveWest’s £500k claim and how was it calculated? Has it been based on what LiveWest’s actual loss would be if the fencing wasn’t erected, or just a figure that they sent to the Council without further detail?
9. Has the council taken into account the costs it would incur in defending, and potentially losing a judicial review against its decision to close Packsaddle Community Fields to the public?
10. LiveWest’s planning application has already been refused at committee, then refused by the Planning Inspector. When LiveWest threatened to challenge the Inspector’s decision, the Secretary of State considered “the claim to be unarguable” and said it would pursue LiveWest for costs if it proceeded. LiveWest then dropped its claim. Given this context of refusal after refusal from all legitimate angles, LiveWest’s behaviour here can only be viewed as corporate bullying. They will be well aware that their case is likely to be “unarguable” but are relying on the fact that a cash strapped Council may not have the nerve to defend itself. Given that the Council’s decision on this is going to be extremely public (there is a lot of press interest in this case), has the Council considered the longer term impact of publicly being seen to submit to corporate bullying? This decision is likely open the floodgates for many other unscrupulous corporates who will use financial and legal threats against Somerset Council to get their way, ultimately costing the Council more money in the long run. 

We look forward to your reply

Yours sincerely

People for Packsaddle