Minutes 24 February 2026 – Whittington Parish Council

Meeting of Whittington Parish Council at 7:30PM on Tuesday 24th February 2026 at Whittington Community Hall, WR5 2RQ (///wonderfully.paper.agent)

Minutes 02/2026

Present: Adam Hooper (Chair), Katie Lambeth-Mansell, Stuart Austin, Helena Bennett
In attendance: David Hunter-Miller (Clerk), Liz Turier (District Councillor), Jayne Rayer (Whittington Church), Rob Adams (District Councillor, from 8:50PM), two members of the public

1. Chairman’s welcome and announcements
Adam Hooper opened the meeting and welcomed attendees.

2. Apologies for absence: To receive apologies and to approve reasons for absence
Apologies were noted from Richard Boase.

It was noted that Oliva Khong had resigned and the parish council extended their thanks for her contributions.

3. Declarations of personal and prejudicial interest

3.1. Register of Interests: With reference to items on the agenda councillors are reminded of their responsibility to declare interests and to update their register of interests as required.
Noted.

3.2. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests: To declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in items on the agenda and their nature.
Nil declared.

3.3. Other Interests: To declare any Other Registerable Interests or Non-Registerable Interests in items on the agenda and their nature.
Adam Hooper declared an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.7 (Whittington Community Hall) and an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.9 (Whittington Events Group).

Katie Lambeth-Mansell declared an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.8 (Whittington Charities) and an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.9 (Whittington Events Group).

Helena Bennett declared an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.8 (Whittington Charities) and a Non-Registerable Interest in items 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.2 and 12.3 (Parkway new town development and South Worcestershire Development Plan).

3.4. Dispensations: To consider any written dispensations from councillors who have declared an interest but wish to stay in the meeting during that time to aid discussion / speak / vote.
A dispensation had previously been granted to Adam Hooper to allow participation and voting on all matters pertaining to Whittington Community Hall.

A dispensation had previously been granted to Helena Bennett to allow participation, but not voting, on all matters pertaining to Wychavon Town and the South Worcestershire Development Plan).

4. Open Session
The meeting was adjourned for the open session.

4.1. Public participation
No questions were received.

4.2. District Councillors: To receive a brief report
Liz Turier provided a report on Police operating model changes and a campaign to encourage residents to switch to e-billing for their council tax bill.

4.3. County Councillor: To receive a brief report
Linda Robinson provided a written report that would be uploaded to the parish council’s website.

4.4. Whittington C of E Primary School: To receive a brief report
A short update was received; the school were looking forward to being part of the Whittington Summer Fayre.

4.5. Whittington Church: To receive a brief report
Jayne Rayer provided an update as follows:
• 7th March 2026 – Yew Brew Coffee Morning – talk by Malcolm MacLeod
• 15th March 2026 – Mothering Sunday Service

4.6. Brethren Church: To receive a brief report
No matters were reported.

4.7. Whittington Community Hall: To receive a brief report
A short update was received; it was noted that bookings remained very strong.

4.8. Elizabeth Stephens & Fanny Clifton Charity: To receive a brief report
A short update was received; tickets for the ‘Big Breakfast’ charity fundraising event had sold out.

4.9. Whittington Events Group: To receive a brief report
A short update was received; it was noted that preparations for the Whittington Summer Fayre were ongoing.

The meeting resumed following the open session.

5. To consider and adopt the minutes from the parish council meeting on the 27th January 2026
It was RESOLVED to adopt the minutes as a true record and they were duly signed by the Chair.

6. Progress reports

6.1. Councillor vacancies
It was noted that there were currently four vacancies on the parish council and enquiries from parishioners were welcomed.

It was RESOLVED to contact residents that had expressed an interest in community volunteering to see if they would consider becoming a parish councillor.

6.2. Berkley Close fly tipping
It was noted that enquiries had been made with the Police, Worcestershire Regulatory Services, the housing association and the adjacent landowner.

7. Planning

7.1. To consider the following planning matters to be determined by Wychavon District Council:

7.1.1. W/26/00320/HP: The Hawthorns, Church Lane, Whittington, WR5 2RQ. One and Two Storey Rear extensions.
It was RESOLVED that the parish council had no objections in principle but would ask that the application is carefully considered to ensure that it adequately protects the privacy and amenity of adjacent properties.

7.1.2. W/25/02814/OUT: Land At (Os 8995 5086), Pershore Road, Norton, Worcester. Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved for the phased development of up to 191.16 hectares at ‘land north east of Worcestershire Parkway Railway Station’ (Town Centre). Works to include necessary demolition, site clearance and engineering works to create development platforms; the provision of residential development (C3) including senior living (C2/C3) and a hotel (C1); the provision of mixed use floorspace (E, F1, F2 and compatible sui generis uses); education facilities including primary, secondary, post-16 provision and a SEND school (F1); delivery of green and blue infrastructure including a Community Park, woodland, strategic sports provision, parks and recreation grounds; the creation of an internal transport network with connections to the surrounding highway, cycle and pedestrian network, to include a link to the A44 and safeguarding land for a new all modes bridge to the town centre and an active travel pass under the B4084; the retention/stopping up/diversion of existing public rights of way and creation of new routes; and all associated works including connections to existing power and waste network.
It was RESOLVED that the parish council would comment as follows:

The Parish Council notes this outline planning application and reiterates its support in principle for the proposed new Wychavon Town. The Parish Council recognises the strategic ambitions for the site and its intended role within the wider strategy for South Worcestershire.

However, the current outline submission lacks sufficient detail in a number of key areas to enable a meaningful and comprehensive assessment of likely impacts. The application is highly conceptual, with many critical matters deferred to future stages. In the spirit of constructive engagement, the Parish Council asks that the following matters are clarified and strengthened.

Construction Traffic Management
It is unclear how construction traffic will be routed to and from the site. If the B4084 is intended to serve as a primary construction access route, a clear construction traffic management plan will be required, including defined routing agreements, safeguards for existing residents, agreed hours of operation and effective enforcement mechanisms. Policy SWDP 4 (Moving Around South Worcestershire) requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all users and to avoid unacceptable impacts on highway safety. The application does not currently provide sufficient clarity as to how this will be achieved during what is likely to be a 35-plus year construction programme. Given the scale and duration of development, construction impacts must be treated as a primary planning consideration rather than a matter for later consideration.

Sequencing and Delivery
The Parish Council seeks clear confirmation that infrastructure will be delivered in advance of, or alongside, development rather than following residential occupation. In particular, clarity is required on the sequencing of the Stoulton Bypass, the delivery timing of the proposed all-mode bridge and the provision of education and other community facilities. Policy SWDP 7 (Infrastructure) requires supporting infrastructure to be provided in a timely manner. The absence of a well-defined infrastructure delivery plan makes it difficult to determine whether impacts will be mitigated proactively or retrospectively.

Pedestrian Safety – B4084 Railway Bridge
The existing B4084 railway bridge presents a challenge for pedestrians and cyclists. If construction and subsequent development traffic are to use this corridor, the application must demonstrate how pedestrian and cyclist safety will be maintained throughout the construction period and what mitigation will be in place prior to completion of alternative crossings. Policies SWDP 4 (Moving Around South Worcestershire) and SWDP 21 (Design) require safe and inclusive access and without clear proposals there is a risk that pedestrian safety could be compromised for an extended period.

All-Mode Bridge and Pedestrianised Town Centre
The Planning Statement indicates that the proposed all-mode bridge will connect directly into a largely pedestrianised town centre. The application should therefore clarify how vehicular traffic will be managed safely. Policy SWDP 21 (Design) requires development to be functional as well as aspirational, and the relationship between vehicular access and pedestrian safety should be resolved at outline stage.

Wider Area Traffic Impacts
Although the Planning Statement suggests the development will substantially improve transport connections, there is insufficient clarity regarding the cumulative impact beyond the site boundary. Greater explanation is required regarding impacts on a much wider radius, out towards Pershore and Worcester and also nearby communities such as Whittington and Norton. Policy SWDP 4 (Moving Around South Worcestershire) requires development to demonstrate that cumulative impacts are not severe. Given the scale of the proposal, with approximately 3,400 dwellings in this phase alone, a realistic assessment of vehicle generation is essential. While active travel and public transport are supported, reliance on very high modal shift assumptions risks underestimating real-world traffic growth.

Realistic Modal Assumptions
The Parish Council supports sustainable transport objectives; however, the vision for the new town appears to assume extensive uptake of bus, cycling and walking. While aspirational, this does not reflect established patterns of car ownership and travel behaviour in rural Worcestershire, including multi-car households, school travel patterns and longer distance commuting. A robust assessment should therefore consider scenarios in which car use remains significant. Policy SWDP 1 (Overarching Sustainable Development Principles) requires development to be deliverable and grounded in realistic assumptions.

Healthy Lifestyles and Construction Impact
The application asserts that the development will have a positive impact on health and wellbeing. While long-term provision of green infrastructure and active travel routes is welcomed, the prolonged construction period is likely to result in noise, dust, vibration and traffic disturbance significantly affecting neighbouring communities for many years. These impacts, and their severe effect on quality of life, must be fully acknowledged and mitigated in accordance with Policy SWDP 31 (Pollution and Land Instability) and sustainable development principles. Claims of longer-term positive health outcomes need to be balanced by recognition of these short-term impacts.

Conclusion
The Parish Council supports in principle the strategic development of a new Wychavon Town as envisaged within the emerging SWDPR. However, this support is contingent upon infrastructure-led delivery, robust and realistic transport modelling, proper assessment of impact on neighbouring communities, adequate provision for pedestrians, effective construction traffic management and credible mechanisms for addressing long-term construction impacts.

The Parish Council therefore requests that these matters are fully considered prior to determination, and that suitable conditions, obligations and detailed phasing requirements are imposed to ensure that the development is deliverable, safe and consistent with the South Worcestershire Development Plan’s objectives.

7.1.3. W/25/02813/OUT: Land At (Os 8995 5086) Pershore Road Norton Worcester. Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the phased development of up to 220.72 hectares at “land south of Worcestershire Parkway Station” (Southern Neighbourhood). Works to include the necessary demolition, site clearance and engineering works to create development platforms; the provision of residential development (C3) including senior living (C2/C3); the provision of mixed use floor space (E, F1, F2 and compatible sui generis uses); education facilities including primary and secondary; provision of green and blue infrastructure including the Stoulton Buffer which will provide amenity space, natural green space, play space, parkland and a formal sports facility; the creation of an internal transport network with connections to the surrounding highway; cycle and pedestrian network , to include the Stoulton Bypass and safeguarding land for an active travel underpass under the B4084; the retention/stopping up/diversion of existing public rights of way and creation of new routes; and all associated works including connections to existing power and waste network.
It was RESOLVED that the parish council would comment as follows:

7.2. To note responses submitted under delegated authority for the following applications:

7.2.1. W/25/02776/OUT: Land At (Os 8818 5154), Pershore Road, High Park, Whittington. Outline planning application for the phased delivery of employment development, forming part of the proposed Woodhall Neighbourhood. Works to include site clearance / remediation works and engineering works to create new development platforms; the construction of employment floorspace (Use Class B2, B8 and ancillary E(g)(i)); the creation of an internal transport network with connections to the surrounding highway, cycle and pedestrian network (including 1no. vehicular junction onto the B4084); green infrastructure comprising formal, informal open space and amenity space; the stopping up / diversion of existing public rights of way, and the creation of new routes; supporting utilities infrastructure including a sustainable drainage system. Details of the vehicular access point is submitted for approval. All other matters are reserved for future determination.
It was noted that a detailed objection to the application had been submitted under delegated authority, a copy would be uploaded to the parish council’s website.

7.3. To consider the following Wychavon Town public consultation:

7.3.1. Wain Estates: Abbotswood Ridge Neighbourhood (South)
It was RESOLVED to respond under delegated authority between meetings. It was considered that the consultation was not fit for purpose and does not follow Homes England best practice.

7.4. To note responses submitted under delegated authority for the following consultations:

7.4.1. South Worcestershire Development Plan Review Main Modifications
It was noted that the parish council had no comments.

7.4.2. Wychavon Town Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
It was noted that a response had been submitted under delegated authority as follows:

SPD quotes
‘Wychavon Town – a naturally designed, perfectly placed new town. Designed to set the standard nationally of new town developments, inspired by landscape setting harmonious with environment’

‘A memorable and attractive ‘front door’ to arriving traffic’

‘An all-modes boulevard – attractive street’

‘Woodhall – retention of existing hedgerows, trees and irreplicable habitats – forms basis of landscape framework’

The parish council welcomes the Wychavon Town SPD and its recognition of the importance of landscaping, green buffers, and the retention of key views and natural features. Proposals such as structural planting, playing fields to buffer existing properties, the protection of hedgerows and trees and the early implementation of the ‘Boulevard’ are all fully endorsed as they will enhance the character of the area and benefit both new and existing communities.

However there are a number of areas that are of extreme concern to existing communities and the parish council which need more careful consideration. It is felt that the SPD does not go far enough to safeguard the needs of existing residents or to ensure the timely and practical delivery of supporting infrastructure.

Traffic management, particularly during construction, remains unclear, with risks to the B4084 and surrounding local roads. Existing communities, especially within Whittington, are not sufficiently recognised, with community benefits being unevenly distributed, and proposed employment uses raise concerns regarding compatibility with residential areas and long-term HGV impacts. These issues require further careful consideration before the SPD is finalised.

Boulevard and Traffic Management
The document provides no clear detail on how construction traffic will be managed or the proposed sequencing of development.

Later-stage planning proposes the introduction of the “Boulevard,” potentially not until after 2041. Until that point, all construction and development traffic would be expected to use the B4084. This does not represent a sound or sustainable plan, given the likely impacts in terms of noise and air pollution, road safety, pedestrian safety, and the suitability of a B-road for sustained high volumes of heavy goods vehicles.

Page 73 states: “This is particularly the case for early development of the reimagined B4084 corridor which will underpin sustainable movement throughout the new settlement.” Early delivery of this corridor is essential during the construction phase and beyond. However, the Merton College planning application appears to disregard the Boulevard concept entirely, undermining the SPD’s stated objectives.

It should be recognised that construction HGVs are likely to operate at gross vehicle weights of up to 44 tonnes, or under Special Types General Orders (STGO), for which there are no standard size or weight limits. These vehicles will be required to transport large cranes and specialist construction equipment and should not be regarded as typical or average HGV traffic.

Paragraph 4.74 refers to adapting the network over time and achieving an optimal long-term design “as and when needed.” This approach creates the potential for incremental expansion of the B4084 into a dual carriageway rather than a landscaped boulevard, particularly when read alongside paragraph 5.33, which refers to increasing highway capacity “if required.”

Page 136 states that M5 Junction 7 “needs to be a dual carriageway.” This has significant implications for traffic volumes and road infrastructure that are not adequately addressed elsewhere in the document.

Paragraph 4.75 states that the B4084 will be adapted to minimise impacts on existing residents, but provides no explanation of how this will be achieved or what specific mitigation measures are proposed.

Rapid development of employment land is referenced, yet there is no corresponding commitment to early delivery of the Boulevard, improvements to the B4084, or housing infrastructure (paragraph 4.44), creating a clear imbalance in development priorities.

Paragraph 5.34 states that the B4084 corridor allows local authorities, landowners, and promoters to achieve the outcomes they require; however, there is no clear consideration of the impacts on existing residents or how their interests will be protected.

An alternative option (Option 2), involving two all-modes streets through the Northern and Western neighbourhoods, is considered but rejected on the basis that it may conflict with a proposed new primary school. As neither the roads nor the school have yet been built, this option could represent a viable and less harmful alternative to placing significant traffic impacts on existing communities. The rationale for rejecting this option is unclear, particularly given the stated intention to consider the needs of current residents.

Paragraph 5.44 proposes shuttle-working traffic signals on the bridge until at least 1,500 homes are built. It is questionable whether this would be a workable or safe solution, particularly given the size and frequency of construction vehicles expected during this period.

The SPD continues to show a traffic junction opposite existing residential properties on Pershore Road. This proposal has been widely objected to as part of the Merton College planning application and remains a significant unresolved concern and a high priority for local residents and the parish council.

Pages 32–34 identify active travel routes connecting to Church Lane, Whittington, and Woodbury Lane, Norton. Both roads currently function as dangerous rat-runs and are unsuitable for increased pedestrian and cycle movements without significant safety improvements.

Pages 35–38 consider vehicle movements but omit Woodbury Lane and Church Lane, despite both routes being busy at present and likely to experience increased traffic as a direct consequence of the new town development. This will occur both during construction and post-completion, as drivers seek to avoid congestion, increased traffic volumes, and roadworks on main routes.

Page 178 discusses S106 infrastructure contributions. These will impact the Whittington traffic island and two major “rat runs” (Church Lane, Whittington and Woodbury Lane, Norton). S106 funding should be considered to deliver traffic-calming measures, including:
• Traffic lights at peak times on Whittington traffic island
• Pedestrian crossing on the northbound slip road of the M5, Junction 7
• 20mph zones on Church Lane and Woodbury Lane

Parish of Whittington and Existing Communities
SPD Page 161 (Figure 66) refers to a “historic village” but does not appear to acknowledge or include current residents living in the area. Clarification is required as to why existing communities are excluded. Additionally, the proposed naming of the new settlement area as “Whittington Fields” is wholly inappropriate, as the site does not lie within the parish of Whittington.

Paragraph 5.12 states that the Stoulton green buffer will be retained to provide a settlement gap between the new development and the historic village. Existing residents in the Whittington area are also part of an established and historic settlement, yet are not afforded the same level of consideration or protection. This apparent inconsistency needs to be adequately addressed.

The SPD does not clearly set out how key impacts on existing residents will be mitigated in practical and measurable terms, including noise, light pollution, air pollution, vibration, traffic disturbance, and the cumulative effects on health and wellbeing.

On Page 15, the SPD states that the development will “improve health and wellbeing.” It is unclear to whom this benefit applies, as there is no explicit consideration of how the health and wellbeing of current residents will be protected or enhanced.

Page 72 proposes a Gypsy and Traveller site beneath Junction 7, forming part of the gateway to the new town and adjacent industrial and warehouse development. Subjecting new traveller residents to sustained high levels of noise, light pollution, air pollution, and increased traffic volumes in this location raises serious concerns regarding living conditions and wellbeing.

Page 171 states that existing users and properties within Wychavon Town should be retained, protected, and incorporated into the design in a sensitive and positive manner. It also emphasises the need to demonstrate a positive spatial and functional relationship with existing communities adjacent to Wychavon Town. This approach is supported.

Landscaping and Green Space
There is no clear explanation of the benefits this development will deliver for the Parish of Whittington. In particular, the SPD does not identify any additional provision of green space, allotments, parks, or recreational facilities within the Whittington parish boundary.

Page 123 refers to the retention of views towards the Malvern Hills and Crookbarrow Hill (Whittington Tump). These views are unlikely to be preserved if warehouse development is permitted south of the B4084 at Junction 7. The SPD also refers to the retention of existing hedgerows and protected trees (TPOs), which again does not appear to be reflected in the Merton College planning application.

Page 124 supports the retention of existing hedgerows, which is welcomed. However, the statement regarding the “use of new structural landscaping and existing topography to relate new development sensitively to existing residential uses on Pershore Road” lacks clarity. Further explanation is required to demonstrate how this approach would work in practice and how it would effectively protect existing residents.

Page 125 proposes playing fields to provide a buffer to existing properties, incorporating existing hedgerows. This approach is welcomed as a means of protecting current residents.

Page 127 references new structural planting to provide protection for existing residents. This is supported and should be implemented as a priority.

Page 129 proposes a green gateway at the M5 arrival into the town, primarily landscape-focused but including visible residential and smaller-scale employment uses to reinforce welcoming elements. This is supported, and the gateway should be designed to deliver a strong visual impact with the “wow” factor.

Pages 161–163 address the preservation of views towards Crookbarrow Hill. Retention of these views will depend on the height and positioning of warehouses, particularly those on higher ground close to the B4084.

Page 81 addresses parks and green community space. Residents of Whittington village, Wildmore, Whittington Walk, and nearby areas of Worcester have historically enjoyed access to green space and farmland via public rights of way. Much of this green space will be lost due to business parks, employment land, and housing development. While the new Wychavon Town neighbourhoods are provided with parks and community green space, existing communities such as Whittington and nearby Worcester areas appear to have been excluded. Consideration should be given to using S106 funding to address this imbalance, for example through the purchase and protection of Church Farm as publicly accessible green space.

Planned Employment Opportunities
Page 36 refers to the provision of “regional scale logistics.” The introduction of a regional logistics facility adjacent to, or within, a residential area is fundamentally at odds with the stated aspiration to support local employment opportunities and reduce vehicle movements. Regional logistics uses are likely to generate significant HGV traffic from across the country, directly undermining these objectives.

Page 36 (Figure 16) identifies an area of “strategic employment” that appears to encompass existing residential properties, which are clearly not suitable or intended for warehouse or industrial use. This raises serious concerns about whether current residents are being adequately recognised and considered, or effectively omitted from the SPD’s spatial analysis.

Appendix 1 (Page 104) refers to Use Class E(g), noting that light industrial uses should be capable of operating within residential areas without detriment. It is unclear how this principle will be enforced in practice, particularly as it does not appear to be reflected in the Merton College planning application. Clear safeguards and criteria are required to ensure compliance and to protect existing residents from adverse impacts.

Green Spaces
The Parish Council was previously advised that a Green Space Officer would be engaged to help inform the management and design of the proposed green areas. To date, this has not occurred. Given that Whittington will have limited green space as part of the proposals, the Parish Council considers it important to understand why such a small allocation has been made and how these areas are intended to be designed, managed and used in practice. Greater clarity on this matter would be welcomed.

Additional Comments
The SPD does not clearly set out a foul wastewater strategy. Further detail is required to explain how wastewater will be managed, including capacity, phasing, and any necessary infrastructure upgrades.

The framework masterplan refers to a “consensus masterplan”; however, it is unclear whether all landowners and developers have agreed to this approach. Current planning submissions, including the Merton College application, suggest that this consensus has not been achieved.

There is uncertainty regarding the practical value and enforceability of the masterplan. Clarification is needed as to whether Wychavon District Council, Worcester City Council, and Malvern Hills District Council will actively require and deliver the masterplan’s principles, or whether it functions merely as an aspirational document with limited weight in decision-making.

In conclusion, Whittington Parish Council reaffirms its support for the Wychavon SPD, yet critical ambiguities remain. We urge a more robust commitment to mitigating impacts on existing residents in Whittington and Worcester—both on the B4084 immediately east of M5 J7 and also those to the west of the motorway junction.

8. Highways, PRoW and Lengthsman Scheme

8.1. To receive an update on the lengthsman scheme and to consider any items for the work schedule
No matters were reported.

8.2. To consider an update on lengthsman training
It was noted that a Lengthsman training session had been scheduled for 20/03/26.

8.3. To consider an update on the proposed stopping up of the highway at 31 and 33 Walkers Lane, Worcester
It was noted that the proposed stopping up order had been withdrawn; accordingly it was RESOLVED to ask Worcestershire County Council, via Linda Robinson, to relocate the fencing and restore forward visibility.

9. Finance

9.1. To consider and approve the latest budget expenditure
It was RESOLVED to approve the budget expenditure.

9.2. To consider and approve the latest bank reconciliation
It was RESOLVED to approve the bank reconciliation.

9.3. To approve the following invoices for payment:

9.3.1. David Hunter-Miller (salary and expenses)
9.3.2. HMRC (PAYE)
9.3.3. Worcestershire County Council Pension Fund (pension)
It was RESOLVED to settle the above invoices.

9.4. To note the following payments made under delegated authority between meetings:

9.4.1. 06/02/26 Whittington Village Hall (donation towards garden – S106): £1,500.00
The above payment was noted.

9.5. To note the following direct debit payments between meetings:

9.5.1. 19/01/26 Lloyds Bank (service charge): £4.25
9.5.2. 13/02/26 Severn Trent Water (allotments supply): £61.39
9.5.3. 17/02/26 Lloyds Bank (service charge): £4.25
The above payments were noted.

10. Correspondence for response or action

10.1. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: National Planning Policy Framework – proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system
The above consultation was noted.

10.2. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: Consultation on Local Government Reorganisation in Worcestershire
It was RESOLVED that the parish council would invite Paul Middlesborough to attend the next meeting with a view to informing the parish council’s consultation response.

10.3. Wychavon District Council: Consultation on infrastructure charges
It was RESOLVED to submit a response under delegated authority between meetings.

11. Parish matters for decision/action

11.1. To consider fly-tipping issues at Pershore Road
It was RESOLVED to report the ongoing fly tipping at Pershore Road to Wychavon District Council.

11.2. To consider and adopt an updated Freedom of Information Act Guide
It was RESOLVED to adopt an updated Freedom of Information Act Guide.

11.3. To consider parish councillor allowances
It was RESOLVED that the parish council would not introduce parish councillor allowances.

11.4. To consider councillor training – funding solutions for smaller parish and town councils
It was RESOLVED to circulate the following training session: Understanding the Planning Process for Parish Councils on the 4th June 2026.

11.5. To consider the parish council’s 2026/27 action plan
It was RESOLVED to add the parish council’s 2026/27 action plan to the next agenda.

11.6. To consider an update on footpath improvements at Wildmore
It was noted that footpath maintenance works had been scheduled by Wychavon District Council and that they would look to extend the path to cover both sides of the parish council noticeboard.

It was RESOLVED to email Linda Robinson to ask for a review of the bridleway surface condition at Whittington Walk.

11.7. To consider an update for a requested new litter bin for Spetchley Road / Dalziel Drive junction
It was RESOLVED to ask Rob Adams to expedite the request for a new litter bin.

11.8. To review Pershore Road traffic data (collected from SID)
The traffic speed/volume data was noted and would be kept on file and it was RESOLVED to forward a copy of the data to Linda Robinson.

It was RESOLVED to contact Emily Barker (Worcestershire County Council Highways) for a copy of the traffic modelling data for Pershore Road.

12. Working Groups

12.1. To review parish council Working Groups and Terms of References
It was RESOLVED to defer discussions until a future meeting.

12.2. Community Spaces (including allotments)

12.2.1. To consider an update from the working group (including allotment inspections)
It was noted that the allotment tenancy renewals had been processed, and all plots had been renewed. There were currently three people on the waiting list.

12.3. SWDP

12.3.1. To consider an update from the working group
No matters were reported.

12.3.2. To review priorities for Biodiversity Net Gain and S106
It was RESOLVED to review the S106 priority list between meetings with a view to adopting at a future meeting.

It was RESOLVED to invite the Chair of Norton Juxta-Kempsey Parish Council to a future meeting to seek advice on acquiring S106/CIL/grant funding.

13. Councillors’ reports and items for the next agenda
It was RESOLVED to add the following items to the next agenda:
• Parish Council’s 2026/27 action plan
• Review of Working Groups and Terms of References
• Priorities for Biodiversity Net Gain and S106

13.1. High Park & Pershore Road
It was RESOLVED to make enquiries with Worcestershire Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE to see if there is any advice for responding to larger planning applications

13.2. St Peter’s
No matters were reported.

13.3. Whittington Village
No matters were reported.

13.4. Whittington Walk & Swinesherd
No matters were reported.

13.5. Wildmore, Walkers Lane and Whittington Road
No matters were reported.

13.6. Whole parish
No matters were reported.

14. Date of the next meeting
The next scheduled meeting is at 7:30PM on Tuesday 24th March 2026.

The meeting closed at 9:06 PM.