Local Lib Dems Back Stourport joining a South Worcestershire Unitary

Following the publication of a leaked document that shows the North-South option is likely to cost residents less than a whole county unitary authority, as well as confrimation from the Government that council boundries can be changed to a parish or town council level, the Wyre Forest Liberal Democrats have announced a campaign for Stourport to be part of the South Worcestershire Unitary Authority, alongside other small rural-facing towns. Here's why:

1. Better Management of Housing on Our Southern Border

By moving into the South, Stourport gains oversight and income from developments like Pearl Lane. Currently, we see the impact on infrastructure and services, but we get none of the funding. A new boundary would move south to Tenbury/Clifton/M50.

2. Protecting Our Northern Greenbelt

A clearer north-south border would protect land to the north from overdevelopment and prevent Kidderminster’s urban sprawl into rural areas like Burlish Top and Wilden Marsh.

3. Better Representation

Stourport's needs differ from urban-focused towns like Kidderminster, Redditch, and Bromsgrove. These towns look to Birmingham; we are rural, tourism- and community-focused. Moving South aligns us with places that share our challenges and priorities.

In the left image, you can see that the three main towns dominate the council makeup, with Stourport comprising only three councilors, while the grey represents Bewdley and the small villages.

In the right image, over half the councillors are from small towns and villages, meaning it will give small towns much greater influence where they've historically been sidelined.

4. A Chance to Rewrite Local Plans

Current plans have failed all three towns — but especially Stourport. A split would allow new, locally driven plans that better reflect our needs in housing, business, tourism, and cultural development.

5. Fairer Funding for Local Facilities

WFDC funds Kidderminster’s Town Hall, while it doesn't support Stourport’s Civic Hall or Bewdley's St George's Hall, or other community spaces. Moving South could bring fairer treatment and funding.

6. Stronger Voice in the South

In the North, Stourport would be outnumbered: just 3 councillors vs 52 for other towns. In the South, we’d likely have at least 5, giving us a real chance to influence decisions and shape our future.

7. Cost-Effective Governance

A North/South split with shared services (education, health) but local delivery (bins, leisure, housing) offers the best value for money, according to current models.

8. We Are Rural Facing — Not Birmingham Facing

Stourport’s economy is based on tourism, rural businesses, and home working — not city commuting or heavy industry. We share more in common with South Worcestershire than the Birmingham commuter belt.

9. Economic Opportunities in the South

The South offers growth in agriculture, cyber tech (Malvern), manufacturing and services (Worcester). Improved links would give our residents access to these jobs, while keeping investment local.

10. A Town Hub for Stourport

Joining the South may allow us to host a local services hub — possibly on the High Street — giving the town a much-needed boost. In the North, this would stay in Kidderminster.

11. Future-Proofing Against Boundary Changes

House building will likely trigger boundary changes. Moving South now makes sense — aligning with potential new constituency borders and helping residents understand the new structure.

We need you, as residents, to contact your councillors to tell them which option they should back.

It's worth acknowledging that Bewdley and the villages may also benefit from moving into the Southern Unitary.