A Lichfield Conservative councillor has launched a scathing attack on Labour’s call for a £1million funding boost for Burntwood.
The opposition group at Lichfield District Council said the “modest” amendment to the budget approved by the Tory-controlled local authority would pale into comparison alongside the £12.5million-plus already spent on the failed Friarsgate scheme and subsequent Birmingham Road Site.
Cllr Sue Woodward argued that the money would also represent a fairer deal for other areas of the district.
But Conservative Cllr Jon O’Hagan accused Cllr Woodward of producing “back of a fag packet” financial plans.
“You produced a piece of paper with a few numbers, but without headings, explanations, or a rationale,” he said.
“You proposed it to the council with no notice and expect everyone to accept your back of a fag packet-style demands for £1.5million, without any type of scrutiny, or audit.
“This was clearly a pre-election ploy to grab headlines and then complain that no one takes you seriously.
“This was a transparent publicity stunt, that only your husband [former councillor Steve Norman], and other acolytes take seriously.”
His comments come after his district council Conservative colleague and leader of Burntwood Town Council, Cllr Doug Pullen, had accused Labour of failing to provide a fully-costed budget proposal.
But Cllr Woodward denied that the proposals had been plucked out of thin air.
She said: “The proposals I put forward were checked and agreed to be sound both by the senior finance officer and legal officer at Lichfield District Council, as I said at the meeting.
“I won’t embarrass Cllr Pullen by pointing out that he hadn’t realised that the budget proposed by the Tories included an additional £696,000 for short-term improvements to the old Friarsgate site, on top of the £2,299,000 already committed.
“If he hadn’t realised – and he’s one of the sharper ones in the controlling Tory group – I’m not confident that many of his colleagues had.
“He argued that funds already committed and agreed shouldn’t be removed – and I would agree – but all of the funds that I proposed should go to Burntwood and elsewhere in the district were available for this purpose.
“Besides, if he was so concerned about my proposals, why did he abstain along with four other Tories and one who supported the amendment, rather than vote against? Trying to have his cake and eat it?”
