Meeting of Whittington Parish Council at 7:30PM on Tuesday 24th March 2026 at Whittington Community Hall, WR5 2RQ (///wonderfully.paper.agent)
Minutes 03/2026
Present: Adam Hooper (Chair), Katie Lambeth-Mansell, Richard Boase, Stuart Austin, Helena Bennett
In attendance: David Hunter-Miller (Clerk), Liz Turier (District Councillor), Paul Middleborough (District Councillor), Malcolm MacLeod (Community Hall), Stuart Cumella (CPRE), Kevin Fincher (Norton Juxta-Kempsey Parish Council), Steve Brooker (Wychavon Town Project Board), Jayne Rayer (Whittington Church), Linda Robinson (County Councillor)
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
All members present.
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.
Richard Boase declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in item 12.2 (Wildmore, Whittington Allotments).
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 4.10 (Whittington Community Hall) and an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.12 (Whittington Events Group).
Katie Lambeth-Mansell declared an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.11 (Whittington Charities) and an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.12 (Whittington Events Group).
Helena Bennett declared an Other Registerable Interest in item 4.11 (Whittington Charities) and a Non-Registerable Interest in items 7.1.1, 7.2.1 and 7.3 (Wychavon Town and the 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 Richard Boase to allow participation and voting on all matters pertaining to Wildmore, Whittington Allotments.
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. Local Government Reorganisation: To invite the Executive Board Member to address the meeting
Paul Middleborough provided an update on the Local Government Reorganisation proposals for Worcestershire (item 10.1). The government was currently consulting on whether to adopt a single Worcestershire unitary authority, or two (North and South) Worcestershire unitary authorities.
4.3. Campaign to Protect Rural England: To invite the Vice-Chair of CPRE Worcestershire to address the meeting
Stuart Cumella addressed the meeting regarding the benefits of joining the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and how they might support engagement with the Wychavon Town proposals. It was RESOLVED to apply for affiliation to the CPRE at £60.00 per year and to set up a direct debit accordingly.
4.4. Norton-Juxta Kempsey Parish Council: To invite the Parish Chair to address the meeting
Kevin Fincher addressed the meeting regarding S106, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). It was recommended to approach Wychavon District Council with any projects that the parish council may look to deliver in the future so that commitments can be written into relevant S106 agreements. It was noted that CIL funding was not necessarily always available to parish councils.
It was RESOLVED to make enquiries with Wychavon District Council to see if any S106 funding was still available for the parish.
It was RESOLVED to ask Wychavon District Council for an asset list for the parish.
4.5. District Councillors: To receive a brief report
Liz Turier provided an update including recent discussions on the Wychavon Town proposals.
4.6. County Councillor: To receive a brief report
Linda Robinson provided a written report that would be made available on the parish council’s website.
4.7. Whittington C of E Primary School: To receive a brief report
No matters were reported.
4.8. Whittington Church: To receive a brief report
Jayne Rayer provided an update as follows:
• Sunday 29th March Palm Sunday – 11.00am Family Communion
• Friday 2nd April Good Friday – 2.00pm ‘An Hour at the Cross’
• Sunday 5th April Easter Day – 11.00am Easter Family Communion
• The recent talk by Malcolm MacLeod regarding ‘WW1 Soldiers Commemorated in Worcester Cathedral Cloisters’ had been well received
4.9. Brethren Church: To receive a brief report
No matters were reported.
4.10. Whittington Community Hall: To receive a brief report
Malcolm MacLeod provided a report, including an update on improvements at the community hall garden.
4.11. Elizabeth Stephens & Fanny Clifton Charity: To receive a brief report
An update was received as follows:
• The Big Breakfast had been a great success, with a full update provided in the Whittington news
• Ten extra-large easter eggs had been donated
• An afternoon tea event was being planned for June
4.12. Whittington Events Group: To receive a brief report
A short update was received.
The meeting resumed following the open session.
5. To consider and adopt the minutes from the parish council meeting on the 24th February 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 four vacancies on the parish council and enquiries from parishioners were welcomed.
6.2. Berkley Close fly tipping
The parish council had met with landowners, the housing association and police regarding fly tipping and anti-social behaviour.
7. Planning
7.1. To consider the following planning matters to be determined by Wychavon District Council:
7.1.1. W/26/00564/SCO: Land At (Os 8995 5086), Pershore Road, Norton, Worcester. Scoping Opinion for the development of the Wychavon Town Strategic Transport Infrastructure.
It was RESOLVED that the parish council object to the proposals. A detailed response would be compiled between meetings, detailing a number of concerns, including:
• The document is very long and complex (437 pages), limiting accessibility and engagement
• Responsibility for mitigation measures is largely assigned to developers, with limited accountability attributed to Wychavon District Council
• Rail usage and uptake forecasts are considered inaccurate and lack credibility
• Several key issues have been scoped out, including impacts on human health and construction traffic
• Transport and traffic concerns remain insufficiently addressed
• Project phasing appears to prioritise developer convenience over the needs of existing and future residents
• References to HS2 rail improvements are significantly outdated, undermining the document’s overall credibility
• Proposed Section 106 agreements for parkway station and car park expansion are viewed as inappropriate, as they appear to support rail operator interests rather than community benefit
• The document does not identify its author
7.2. To note responses submitted under delegated authority for the following consultations:
7.2.1. Wain Estates: Abbotswood Ridge Neighbourhood (South)
It was noted that a response had been submitted under delegated authority as follows:
Whittington Parish Council wish to register serious concerns about both the consultation process itself and the lack of meaningful information provided to enable residents to give informed feedback on a development of this scale.
Consultation Process
Firstly, it is difficult to regard this exercise as a genuine consultation. The format presented is essentially a short survey consisting of a limited number of questions and tick-box responses, accompanied by a free-text box. A consultation should involve discussion, detailed information sharing and an opportunity to meaningfully influence proposals. Six high-level questions are not representative of the scale or significance of a development of this magnitude. It is essentially a ‘tick box’ exercise where the lack of detail makes it very difficult for residents to raise specific concerns, but it will make it easy to later claim that no issues were identified during consultation.
The material presented reads more like a promotional brochure than a consultation document. The emphasis appears to be on marketing the benefits for future residents, illustrated through imagery of tree-lined boulevards, children playing and families enjoying open space, while very little attention is given to the impact on existing communities and infrastructure. This imbalance is deeply concerning.
Additionally, the consultation material states that this exercise is “entirely separate from the ongoing preparation of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review.” It is unclear why this should be the case as developments of this scale should be closely aligned with the planning framework set out in the South Worcestershire Development Plan.
Whittington Parish Council were not directly informed about this consultation, and presumably neither were other key stakeholders, and so there is serious concern that the consultation will not have reached the most important respondents. The consultation period was also unreasonably short. For a proposal of this scale, affecting multiple communities and potentially thousands of residents, the timeframe provided is insufficient.
Impact on Existing Communities
The consultation documentation contains very little assessment of the impact on existing residents and communities, such as Whittington. Existing infrastructure in surrounding villages and settlements is already under significant strain but the consultation material focuses almost entirely on the experience of new residents. Key issues that require proper assessment include:
• Increased traffic through nearby villages
• Pressure on health services and local facilities
• Environmental and amenity impacts
• Construction impacts lasting many years
Without a clear and transparent assessment of these effects, residents cannot properly evaluate the proposal.
Active Travel Corridors
The consultation refers to active travel routes, but provides little clarity on how these will function safely in practice. Specific concerns include:
• How National Cycle Route 442 will be protected and remain safe for cyclists
• How traffic will be prevented from rat-running through nearby villages such as Stoulton. Simply designating roads as “access only” does not prevent rat-running, experience in Whittington shows that drivers frequently ignore such restrictions and without physical traffic management measures, these routes will inevitably be used as shortcuts.
Surface Water and Drainage
Surface water management is a major concern in this area due to clay soils and known drainage issues. There are several unresolved questions:
• How will pollutants from surface water runoff be prevented from contaminating natural habitats and waterways?
• What assurances will there be regarding the long-term maintenance and management of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)?
• Will there be a binding contractual mechanism for ensuring these systems are properly maintained in the future?
Experience elsewhere has shown that drainage infrastructure often deteriorates without clear long-term management arrangements.
Additionally, footpaths and walking routes must be designed with surface water conditions in mind. Materials used must be capable of withstanding heavy rainfall and flooding. Similar paths built in nearby developments (such as Whittington Walk) have already proven unsuitable in wet conditions.
At present there is no credible plan for water supply, drainage or foul waste management presented in the consultation material.
Health Infrastructure
The consultation does not adequately address health infrastructure requirements associated with such a significant population increase. Questions that remain unanswered include:
• How will hospital capacity accommodate the additional population?
• What provision will be made for primary care services?
• Has cemetery provision been considered as part of long-term community infrastructure?
These are basic elements of sustainable community planning and need to be addressed transparently.
Transport and Infrastructure
The transport proposals presented are vague and appear to rely on infrastructure that does not yet exist,
in particular, the plans refer to links such as the A44 link road which may not be delivered for many years. This raises important questions:
• How will construction traffic be managed before this infrastructure is built?
• What measures will prevent surrounding villages from becoming construction traffic routes?
There also needs to be a clear commitment to accessible bus services particularly for residents who cannot drive due to age, disability or financial circumstances.
The consultation document states that: “the new development will be designed so that walking, cycling and public transport are the most attractive forms of local transport”. This claim does not reflect the current reality of transport provision in the area, which is heavily reliant on private car usage. For public transport to become genuinely attractive, services would need to operate at a frequency and connectivity comparable to systems such as those in London. Without frequent, reliable and wide-ranging bus services, most residents will continue to rely on private cars for day-to-day travel.
There is also confusion regarding the Stoulton Relief Road as it is unclear whether the developer is proposing to construct the entire relief road, or only a small section within land currently under their control. If only a partial section is being proposed, this must be made explicit otherwise the consultation risks misleading residents regarding the extent of the infrastructure being delivered.
Cumulative Impacts
Finally, the consultation fails to address the cumulative impacts of development in the wider area. This proposal is not an isolated project, it forms part of a wider programme of residential development, industrial units and major infrastructure works. Together, these developments will generate significant cumulative impacts, including:
• Increased traffic
• Higher noise pollution levels
• Air pollution
• Environmental degradation
• Loss of amenity
• Increased pressure on health services and infrastructure
Without addressing these cumulative effects, the consultation does not provide a complete or robust understanding of the true impact on residents, the local landscape, or existing infrastructure.
Conclusion
In its current form, this consultation does not provide sufficient information or opportunity for meaningful public engagement. For a development of this scale, residents expect a detailed and transparent consultation process, supported by clear infrastructure plans and a full environmental and cumulative impact assessment. There should be full and proper regard for existing communities and how the negative impacts of the proposals will be adequately mitigated. Until this information is provided, it is extremely difficult for residents to offer informed feedback.
7.2.2. Wychavon District Council: Consultation on infrastructure charges
It was noted that a response had been submitted under delegated authority as follows:
Accessibility of the Consultation Documents
The consultation document is highly technical and difficult for a layperson to understand. It relies heavily on jargon and acronyms, many of which are not clearly explained. Parish councils are largely run by volunteers without specialist planning expertise. Consultation materials should therefore be accessible and clearly explain how the proposals affect local communities.
The document would have benefited from a plain-English summary and practical examples showing how CIL will operate. Without these, it is difficult for parish councillors to confidently identify the key implications of the policy and represent their communities effectively.
Disadvantage to Parish Councils Without a Neighbourhood Plan
The proposed arrangements appear to significantly disadvantage parish councils without a Neighbourhood Development Plan, as parishes with an NDP receive 25% of CIL, whereas those without receive just 15%.
Many smaller parish councils do not have the resources or capacity to prepare a neighbourhood plan (at least a two-year commitment). No advance notice appears to have been given that the introduction of CIL would create this disparity in funding.
Consideration should therefore be given to transitional arrangements, additional support for neighbourhood planning, or mechanisms to ensure that parishes most affected by development are not disadvantaged.
It is patently unfair that Whittington, one of the parishes most impacted by the Wychavon Town proposals will receive far less CIL funding than other parishes with more modest impacts.
Allocation and management of CIL Funding
Greater clarity is required regarding how CIL funds will be allocated and managed. In particular:
• How will the South Worcestershire councils ensure that CIL generated by development is spent on infrastructure related to the communities affected by that development?
• Can other areas or authorities access CIL funding generated locally?
• How will decisions be made about which projects are prioritised?
• When do developer contributions actually become available?
• How and when can parish councils apply for funding?
• Who decides which projects are funded and when?
For communities directly affected by development, it is important that funding generated locally is used to mitigate local impacts. A clear and simple guide explaining the process for parish councils would be very helpful.
In relation to Whittington parish specifically, CIL funding should therefore support local measures such as green buffers between residential areas (Pershore Road) and new commercial development, as well as community green space and recreational facilities.
Infrastructure Delivery and Consistency
There appear to be inconsistencies between different consultation materials. For example, references to early delivery of the proposed Boulevard appear to conflict with other consultation information suggesting development of the Pershore Road area may not occur for many years.
The supporting ‘Worcestershire Parkway Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2024’ also identifies significant infrastructure constraints, including limited water management capacity that must be addressed before development begins. However, there is currently little detail on how this infrastructure will be delivered.
Conclusion
While the principle of using CIL to fund infrastructure is supported, the current consultation raises several concerns regarding accessibility, fairness for parish councils, transparency and the clarity of infrastructure delivery plans. Whittington Parish Council would urge stronger safeguards to be put in place for existing local communities and to strengthen the allocations made to parishes most affected by development.
7.3. SWDP
7.3.1. To note Inspectors Report for the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR)
Concerns were raised regarding the Planning Inspectors’ closing comments:
“The Plan has a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness and legal compliance for the reasons set out above, which mean that we recommend non-adoption of it as submitted”
It was RESOLVED to write to Wychavon District Council Project Board to seek assurances that the modifications will be implemented and enforced.
7.3.2. To consider responses received regarding traffic modelling
The previous traffic modelling report was considered; it was noted that a revised model was currently under review.
7.3.3. To consider representations made by Savills on behalf of Hallam Land, The Spetchley Estate and Landowners of Harkaway in response to the SWDPR Main Modifications Consultation
The developers’ response to the SWDPR Main Modifications Consultation was noted; there was some concern at the content of the response.
It was RESOLVED to write to Wychavon District Council Project Board seeking assurances that they will follow and enforce adherence to the wider strategic plan, especially in light of the developers written intentions to increase warehousing provision. It was asserted that additional warehousing would not generate significant employment for the new town and would replace prime agricultural land. The nearby smaller warehousing development at M5 junction 6 was still not fully subscribed, suggesting that there was not sufficient demand for additional warehousing.
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 the Lengthsman had undertaken training to work on the highway and could resume his duties.
8.3. To review Lengthsman contract for services
It was RESOLVED to renew the contract for services with Charlie Joyner.
8.4. To consider an update on the proposed stopping up of the highway at 31 and 33 Walkers Lane, Worcester
Noting that the proposed stopping up order had been cancelled, Linda Robinson would make enquiries to see the fence line relocated to the appropriate property boundaries and the visibility restored at the priority chicane.
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)
9.3.4. The Society of Local Council Clerks (membership): £316.00
9.3.5. Eyelid Productions Ltd (website): £100.00
9.3.6. Whittington Village Hall (room hire): £16.50
9.3.7. Whittington Village Hall (room hire): £22.50
9.3.8. Whittington Village Hall (room hire): £40.00
9.3.9. SCJ Gardening (Lengthsman): £80.00
It was RESOLVED to settle the above invoices.
9.4. To note the following direct debit payments between meetings:
9.4.1. 17/03/26 Lloyds Bank (service charge): £4.25
The above payment was noted.
10. Correspondence for response or action
10.1. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: Consultation on Local Government Reorganisation in Worcestershire
It was RESOLVED that the parish council would respond in favour of two Worcestershire Councils.
10.2. Worcestershire County Council: Waste Local Plan early baselining and engagement consultation
The above consultation was noted.
10.3. West Mercia Police & Crime Commissioner: Police force mergers public consultation
It was RESOLVED to defer consideration until the May parish council meeting.
10.4. Parishioner: Concerns over carriageway maintenance of Narrow Walk
Concerns over carriageway maintenance of a private section of road were noted; Linda Robinson was investigating.
10.5. The Spetchley Estate: Requested measures to prevent motorcycle access at Brewers Lane
It was RESOLVED to write to Worcestershire County Council to request motorcycle deterrent measures to be implemented, and to recommend that The Spetchley Estate make a similar request.
11. Parish matters for decision/action
11.1. To consider arrangements for the Annual Parish Meeting (14th April 2026)
It was RESOLVED to hold the Annual Parish Meeting at 7:30PM on Tuesday 14th April 2026.
11.2. To consider the parish council’s 2026/27 action plan
It was RESOLVED to defer discussions until a future parish council meeting.
11.3. To review priorities for Biodiversity Net Gain and S106
It was RESOLVED to defer discussions until a future parish council meeting.
11.4. To consider an update on footpath improvements at Wildmore
It was noted that two of the pathways had been repaired by Wychavon District Council, additional resurfacing around the parish council noticeboard and two paths up to the allotment’s boundary had also been agreed.
11.5. To consider an update on the requested new litter bin for Spetchley Road / Dalziel Drive
It was noted that Wychavon District Council had approved provision and installation of a new waste bin.
12. Working Groups
12.1. To review parish council Working Groups and Terms of References
It was RESOLVED to defer discussions until a future parish council meeting.
12.2. Community Spaces (including allotments)
12.2.1. To consider an update from the working group
It was noted that there had been a water pipe burst and a repair had been scheduled under delegated authority.
12.2.2. Update from the Allotment Officers Forum
A short update was received.
12.2.3. To review actions relating to the proposed Tree People project (watering)
No actions were proposed.
12.2.4. To consider a survey of allotment holders to identify future priorities
It was RESOLVED to send a survey to allotment holders.
13. Councillors’ reports and items for the next agenda
13.1. High Park & Pershore Road
No matters were reported.
13.2. St Peter’s
No matters were reported.
13.3. Whittington Village
It was noted that there had been an attempted break in at one of the properties in Whittington village.
13.4. Whittington Walk & Swinesherd
No matters were reported.
13.5. Wildmore, Walkers Lane and Whittington Road
It was noted that an abandoned vehicle had been reported to Wychavon District Council.
13.6. Whole parish
It was RESOLVED to add the following items to the next agenda:
• Neighbourhood Development Plans
• Police force mergers public consultation
• Parish Council’s 2026/27 action plan
• Biodiversity Net Gain and S106
• Parish Council Working Groups and Terms of References
14. Date of the next meeting
The Annual Parish Meeting is scheduled for 7:30PM on Tuesday 14th April 2026.
The Annual Meeting of the Parish Council is scheduled for 7:30PM on Tuesday 19th May 2026.
A resolution was passed to exclude members of the public due to the confidential nature of the following item.
15. Employment Matters: To consider guidance issued by the County Association of Local Councils
Following recent CALC recommendations it was RESOLVED to move the Clerk to National Joint Council for Local Government Services Salary Scale Point 32 with effect from the 1st April 2026.
The meeting closed at 10:16PM.