A ROW is brewing between West Somerset District Council's select group of cabinet members and those tasked with scrutinising their decisions.

Members of the authority's overview and scrutiny committee decided overwhelmingly the cabinet was wrong to sanction spending £5,000 on a consultation exercise over the state of the area's toilets.

Using their 'call-in' powers, members decided to call for a cabinet re-think - but were warned that cabinet members could still ignore their views and plough ahead regardless.

On Monday, the committee was told by deputy chief executive Rod Latham that the council had no legal duty to consult before deciding which toilets to earmark for a £450,000 makeover.

However, cabinet members Jenny David and Stan Taylor maintained the decision-makers were simply following advice and felt they had no choice but to employ a consultant before beginning the refurbishment programme.

When the decision was taken earlier this month, the cabinet was advised to use a consultant by chief executive Tim Howes.

He warned them they would face severe criticism if they spent £450,000 without asking the public first.

But that decision in itself sparked a storm of controversy within the council.

Opponents cited the £5,000 consultation as a waste of money as the work had already been done some seven years ago by a specially commissioned task and finish group.

Chaired by Cllr Mike Gammon, the group had compiled complaints from the public and drawn up a priority list of the work that needed to be done.

He was so infuriated by the cabinet's decision to carry out more consultation that he threatened to resign as chairman.

At Monday's meeting he told councillors: "I don't think it is justified to chuck away £5,000.

"In 1995 plans were put on hold to spend £750,000 on refurbishing toilets. Where did that money go?

"We should be using a common sense approach to this. Inspectors will be looking for best value - it is not best value to spend £5,000 on something we have been talking about for seven years."

He said it was much better to have carried out the work by the time of the next best value inspection, rather than having a piece of paper showing the authority had carried out a consultation exercise.

He won the support of committee members, who believed the £5,000 could be better spent on the refurbishment programme.

Cllr Jenny Hill said: "Why do we need to consult when we already know what we want?

"If we are going to do something, let's do it now before the next tourist season."

But Cllr David told the meeting: "The consultation was in order to do the job correctly.

"It is important we do comply with everything as we will be judged on our performance.

"I appreciate we have been talking about this for a number of years, but I do feel an external consultant is necessary."

She was backed by Cllr Ann Foxhuntley who said: "We know we have to consult, consult, consult. I propose we pass this back to cabinet and let their decision stand."

But Mr Latham advised the committee: "You have to decide if spending £5,000 on a consultant is the best thing to do.

"It can be said that it is advisable to do it, but it is inadvisable to waste money. You don't have to do it."

The committee eventually opted to refer the matter back to the task and finish group and to ask them, in turn, to make a recommendation to the cabinet on the issue of a consultant.

However, the committee also wanted to ensure the group was made aware of its opposition to spending £5,000 on a consultation exercise.

That means the cabinet's original decision to carry out consultation has effectively been overturned - for now.

Even if the task and finish group backs the overview and scrutiny committee, cabinet members can still revert back to their original decision and vote to spend the £5,000.

If that does happen, there will be nothing councillors who are not members of the cabinet can do as the overview and scrutiny committee is not allowed to call in a cabinet decision on the same topic more than once.

The issue of what to do about the district's toilets has troubled the authority.

Earlier in the year, it came under fire from various quarters, including Porlock Parish Council, for closing toilets without gauging public opinion first.

But councillors will have to take action at some point as the majority of the district's public conveniences are deemed to be below acceptable standards.

Many toilets need to be demolished and rebuilt and £15,000 needs to be spent immediately just to bring the electrics up to scratch.

However, the cash-strapped authority may well have to sell off some of its land assets to fund the refurbishments as it is facing a £4.8 million shortfall in its current capital programme.