Councillors have voted against plans to ring-fence almost £1million to support improvements in Burntwood.

Sankey's Corner in Burntwood
Sankey’s Corner in Burntwood

The Labour opposition group had put forward an amendment to the budget at Lichfield District Council which would have seen £993,000 specified in reserves for the project to regenerate the town.

Cllr Steve Norman had suggested a £1.9million pot should be split, with the remaining money ring-fenced for the new leisure centre in Lichfield.

He told a meeting of the council last night (22nd February):

“I want to guarantee we get that £993,000 to kickstart the much larger sums were looking at elsewhere for the Burntwood Town Deal.

“This council should be specific, name that money for a particular project and level up Burntwood.”

Cllr Steve Norman, Lichfield District Council

Labour’s Cllr Di Evans also spoke in support of the proposal saying the town had been given too many empty promises in the past.

“I’ve been a member of this council for many years and for a large number of those we have been asking for a pot of money to develop the infrastructure and improve Burntwood.

“It has become more and more necessary over the years but we’ve still not seen anything happen. We’ve been promised money but it’s never materialised.

“We lost the Brendewood suite and were promised a replacement when the Garrick was built, but that never happened.

“We are sadly lacking an awful lot in Burntwood and everyone will regularly hear people say Lichfield gets it and Burntwood doesn’t.

“Now the controlling group have the opportunity to make amends and direct some funds for Burntwood to help provide much needed and long promised facilities.

“It’s surely not asking too much for this to happen?”

Cllr Di Evans, Lichfield District Council

But Conservative councillors said locking away reserves for specific projects would slow down rather than speed up schemes across the district.

The council’s deputy leader, Cllr Iain Eadie, said:

“We’ve talked about delivering a leisure centre in Lichfield and Cllr Norman says we should ring-fence £1million for that in this amendment, but what happens if we need £1.5million for that? Is the answer that it continues to stall because we’ve locked money away?

“The amendment locks that money out. There are lots of things that we would all like to see delivered, but they cannot happen at the same time – they will have to come forward in order.

“This administration is putting money into Burntwood and will continue to look to do so.

“Meetings have taken place to talk about the town deal and the action plan, but the capital projects were highways improvements at Sankeys Corner – that doesn’t need Lichfield District Council money, that needs Staffordshire County Council to fund it and get on with it.

“As and when we have specific projects this council will stand behind that for Burntwood.

“We don’t need to lock away money now to stop it being spent on other priorities whatever they may be.

Cllr Iain Eadie, Lichfield District Council

“This is a lazy amended budget”

Cllr Doug Pullen
Cllr Doug Pullen

Cllr Doug Pullen, leader of the council, accused Labour of putting forward a “lazy amendment”, insisting that the funding should be looked at when it is needed for projects on the ground linked to the Burntwood Town Deal.

“I’ve spent two years getting rid of earmarked reserves that slow us down as an organisation.

“This is a lazy amended budget. What would have been more helpful for all members is if Cllr Norman had put the time and effort into a balanced budget and done some of the work Cllr Rob Strachan [cabinet member for finance] has done to come up with a proper budget that looked at all facets of the council.

“Instead you’ve come forward with a number, split it in two and said £993,000 for something – but you haven’t defined what – in the Burntwood Town Deal.

“I have personally spent a lot of time on the town deal. It’s something we all want to see happening, but there aren’t any capital projects at the moment under the town deal we can direct this funding to, but you want us to put in a pot that we can’t access for anything else.”

Cllr Doug Pullen, Lichfield District Council

The proposed amendment was eventually rejected by 27 votes to 12. Only Cllr Sam Tapper – who represents the Chasetown ward – from the Conservative benches backed the amendment, which was also supported by all Labour members and Cllr Paul Ray from the Lib Dems.

6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Griffin
2 years ago

Thanks, Lichfield based and sycophantic Tories. Nothing new then?

Bazz
2 years ago

John Griffin, oh stop moaning and crying about this vote not going the way you wanted it to go. About time you grew up and stopped blaming party politics for
certain decisions!

Clare Sholl
2 years ago

Here’s an idea for Cllr Pullen: move the bus station and the multi-storey car park to BURNTWOOD! That way, Burntwood can have the “ugly” amenities that Lichfield doesn’t want – and all the visitors and business that go with it. I’m sure if a few councillors took up the idea and pursued it with LDC, it might actually focus minds on what Lichfield stands to lose by demolishing what it already has. Either that, or Burntwood could find itself with a great new development opportunity at Lichfield’s expense…

Anne taylor
2 years ago

Burntwood has had many promises made since before the 1980’s for leisure facilities shops but nothing has happened. Sankeys corner needs investment to bring it up to date and vibrant

Dean
2 years ago

Measly amounts to get somewhere like burntwood improved, it’s awful. Decent leisure centre needs much more too. Whatever happens it will be sh*te.

Sir Nigel walker
2 years ago

Just waste taxpayers money burntwood not like brownhills town shopping centre