Comparing August 2025 and September 2025 Meetings
| Category | AUGUST 2025 | SEPTEMBER 2025 | Issues / Waste Highlighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🏗️ Big Projects & Grants | – Three Legacy Grant bids submitted: £80k for a pump track, £80k for a Youth Cabin, £40k for solar upgrades at Youth Centre. – Several smaller bids also under discussion but not finalised. | – Still no planning approvalfor the pump track or Youth Cabin. – Council spent meeting time discussing the same grants again. | 🔸 Months of officer time chasing grants before planning permission or quotes are ready. |
| ☕ Community Café / Pavilion Refurbishment | Talked about converting Plovers Pavilion into a Community Café; submitted £7,250 bid. | Application rejected because planning permission hadn’t been sorted. They’re now trying to appeal. | ⚠️ Poor preparation — wasting staff time and hurting credibility with funders. |
| 💻 Youth Hub / IT Kit | Bought IT equipment from Currys Businessfor YMCA Youth Hub (cost not specified). | Approved another £2,642 for more Youth Hub equipment (computers, coffee machine, etc). | ⚠️ Two separate purchases within weeks — suggests lack of coordination and spending control. |
| 👷 Community Builder Role | Agreed to support ongoing funding for community outreach post. | Extended role again and took an extra £6,500 grant to cover costs. | ⚠️ Ongoing costs with unclear results — no public report on what’s achieved. |
| 🏞️ Fly Tipping / Environmental Issues | Fly tipping at Pixham Ferry Lane reported and cleared by district. | Still discussing same site. Considering volunteers to do cleanup instead of paying professionals; asked Severn Trent for CCTV. | 🔸 Recurring issue; inconsistent approach — relying on unpaid labour for public services. |
| 🏛️ Insurance & Admin Costs | No change mentioned. | Renewed annual insurance with Hiscox for £5,957.50 (1 year). | ⚠️ Expensive one-year deal; no sign of shopping around for better rates. |
| 🧾 Audit / Compliance | 2024/25 audit completed — no concerns. | Audit results confirmed and praised. | ✅ No problems, but praise sounded self-congratulatory rather than reflective. |
| 🧍 Volunteer Reliance | Proposed using volunteers for events like “Heartstart” training. | Same volunteers now being asked to clean fly-tipping sites and help with projects. | ⚠️ Council leaning too heavily on unpaid residents to cover gaps in service delivery. |
| 🌳 Beautification Projects | Ordered bulbs and trees for “Love Kempsey” scheme. | Daffodil bulbs arrived; tree planting locations discussed again. | 🔹 Positive but minor — focus on appearances over infrastructure. |
| 🧠 Training / Governance | Discussed “emergency planning” and insurance coverage. | Discussed training for councillors, new email domains, and cybersecurity. | ✅ Some progress on professionalism — long overdue. |
| 🏘️ Planning & Development | Discussed multiple housing plans; concerns about access roads and traffic. | Continued same discussions — Bannut Hill and Napleton Lane projects. | ⚠️ No new outcomes — same topics recycled month to month. |
| 📈 General Observation | Meeting packed with minor updates and repeated issues; little resolution. | Similar pattern — multiple reports, no clear priorities. | ⚠️ Meetings dominated by talk, not decisions; limited measurable progress. |
🔍 Patterns Emerging
| Theme | Summary | Risk / Waste |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Endless Planning, Little Delivery | Council keeps revisiting the same projects (Youth Hub, Pump Track, Community Café) without approvals or completion dates. | Time wasted on administration, grant chasing, and reports with no visible community outcomes. |
| 2. Poor Procurement Control | Repeated small purchases (IT kit, equipment, insurance) made separately. | Higher costs from lack of bulk buying or tendering. |
| 3. Volunteer Overload | Increasing reliance on volunteers for cleanup, events, and even anti-fly-tipping efforts. | Potential burnout, inconsistent service, and avoidance of paid responsibility. |
| 4. Lack of Transparency on Value | New “Community Builder” role and YMCA partnership repeatedly extended. | No measurable impact reports — unclear if residents benefit. |
| 5. Missed Consultation Opportunities | Councillors refused to complete the Worcestershire Nature Recovery survey because it was “too complicated.” | Loss of resident representation in important environmental planning decisions. |
| 6. High Administrative Costs | Nearly £6,000 on insurance, rising IT and hall costs, frequent meetings. | Money going to bureaucracy, not direct improvements for residents. |
💬 Plain-English Summary for Residents
Kempsey Parish Council is busy but not focused.
They spend lots of time and public money talking about good ideas — youth projects, bridges, community cafés, tree planting — but very few of these actually move forward.
The council:
- Applies for grants without the groundwork done, leading to delays and rejections.
- Spends thousands on insurance, IT, and “youth support” with limited accountability.
- Relies on volunteers for essential local maintenance.
- Avoids complex consultations, missing chances to shape county policy.
Meanwhile, the same issues appear in every set of minutes, with very little progress between months.
⚠️ Bottom Line
If you’re a Kempsey resident, you’re paying for plans, not results.
The council’s pattern of short-term spending, unclear roles, and recycled projects risks wasting public money — while local issues like fly tipping, road safety, and youth engagement remain unsolved.
