The Lichfield Garrick

Figures have revealed the level of subsidy the Garrick Theatre receives from Lichfield District Council is expected to drop to £310,000 a year.

The Lichfield Garrick

The projected figure would be less than half of the £663,200 the venue received from the local authority in 2013/14.

The numbers are revealed in a report by Cllr Andrew Smith, Cabinet member for leisure.

He said that the projections for 2016/17 meant that after services provided to the theatre by the council had been paid for, the net cost to the taxpayer would be £256,000 – down from a net bill of £389,295 in the 2015/16 period.

Cllr Andrew Smith

The changes come in the wake of an agreement in 2013 for the Garrick to become a charitable trust.

“On that day, the council’s relationship with the Garrick altered radically,” Cllr Smith said. “The council no longer had responsibility for programming, for budgeting, for employment or for trading.

“These are now matters solely for the Trust and its board of trustees.”

The council is still a funder, service provider and landlord for the Garrick, but the links could be cut further.

Cllr Smith explained: “As the Trust is growing in confidence it is withdrawing from service level agreements, and determining alternative ways of operating.

“In consequence, the council no longer provides services for finance, personnel and payroll and internal audit. The trust has also considering its future requirements regarding IT, insurance and public relations and communications.

“The council has taken the view that it is right for the Trust to seek to make its own arrangements so as to ensure it obtains value for its money and to become even more independent of the council.”


Founder of Lichfield Live and editor of the site.

12 replies on “Lichfield District Council reveals Garrick Theatre subsidy is expected to drop to £310,000 a year”

  1. It’s well known that the council had the funds to revamp the Civic Hall and have enough funds left over to redo the Arts Center as well, instead they chose to borrow money to knock it down and build the Garrick. It’s running on borrowed time and borrowed money.

  2. The set center one of the best music venues to grace Thi city ,now we have a glass fronted monstrosity and they call it progress .

  3. This council like previous ones is proving all they can do is waste money ,maybe its time local people with real connections to the city ,stood for council positions and took away the stale con,lab lib political party agendas away from the running of this city before their hapless endeavours run it in to the ground .

  4. Has anyone actually read the article as, correct me if I’m wrong, it explains how the council is cutting its subsidy of the Garrick by half and therefore saving tax payers money. The Garrick is not failing but simply changing the way it is funded.

    As Lichfield has an important historical connection with Lichfield, the Garrick should be supported by her residents.

  5. @ Thornton

    That’s one way to view it. The other way is to consider the subsidy that is being spent, and that has been spent over preceding years, and wonder why this business isn’t self-sustaining?

    By the way, this isn’t the council’s money, this is our money.

  6. That’s the point its our money they seem intent on wasting oh and and that’s big of them only using only half our money to subsidise it big pat on the back

  7. Has anyone else noticed on the side of the Garrick,partly funded by the EU ,what it really means is fully funded by you

  8. Some things just HAVE to be state funded. We would have no art galleries if they weren’t state funded for the benefit of all. If these things didn’t exist, we may have better roads and more people could live on the dole but we would have no culture. Give the Garrick a break. I’ve been there only once during the Lichfield festival but I accept that it’s important to other people.

  9. All councils facing cuts and its non statory services amongst those being cut. Theatres are non statory.

    Already upsetting to see services to young and elderly people cut etc (and jobs becoming redundant including mine!) so why invest in expensive theatres?

    Yes culture is important but so is services to peoples lives.

    If you want to pass blame then blame the government who’d rather invest in firearms, nhs and fracking etc!

Comments are closed.