> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Panel recommends increase in allowances for members of Lichfield District Council - URL: https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/panel-recommends-increase-in-allowances-for-members-of-lichfield-district-council/ - Published: 2025-05-06T06:01:00.000Z - Updated: 2025-05-06T14:31:23.000Z - Description: Councillors in Lichfield could see their allowances increase if plans are agreed. - Author: Lichfield Live - Tags: Politics, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2026-07-22 18:49, News COUNCILLORS in Lichfield could see their allowances increase if plans are agreed. Members currently receive £4,214 each year – but an independent remuneration panel has now recommended the basic allowance rises to £5,067. Meanwhile, additional payments for “special responsibilities” carried out could also increase under the plans – although some, such as the employment committee chair and vice-chair roles would see a decrease. | **Role** | **[2024 allowance](https://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/downloads/file/1148/councillor-members-scheme?ref=lichfieldlive.co.uk)** | **[2025-26 proposal](https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/content/files/democracy-lichfielddc-gov-uk/documents/s19725/irp-report.pdf)** | | ---------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Basic allowance | £4,214 | £5,067 | | Leader | £12,641 | £15,201 | | Deputy leader | £7,585 | £9,121 *(payment currently for deputy leader/cabinet member shared role)* | | Cabinet members | £6,952 | £8,361 | | Planning committee chair | £6,320 | £7,089 | | Planning committee vice-chair | £1,589 | £1,772 | | Regulatory and licensing committee chair | £2,529 | £3,800 | | Regulatory and licensing vice-chair | £632 | £760 | | Overview and scrutiny committee chair | £2,529 | £5,067 | | Overview and scrutiny committee vice-chair | £632 | £1,013 | | Audit committee chair | *(£1,589* *payment of previously for chair role on audit and member standards committee)* | £3,040 | | Audit committee vice-chair | (*£632 payment previously for vice-chair role on audit and member standards committee)* | £608 | | Standards committee chair | *(£1,589* *payment of previously for chair role on audit and member standards committee)* | £1,520 | | Standards committee vice-chair | (*£632 payment previously for vice-chair role on audit and member standards committee)* | £304 | | Chair of council | £2,885 | £3,800 | | Vice-chair of council | £721 | £760 | | Employment committee chair | £1,589 | £1,520 | | Employment committee vice-chair | £632 | £304 | | Principal opposition group leader | £2,885 *(principal minority group leader)* | £4,560 | | Principal opposition group deputy leader | £721 *(principal minority group deputy leader* | £912 | | Shadow cabinet members | N/A | £684 | | Leader of minority opposition group (minimum five members) | N/A | £760 | A report from the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) said payments would not be recommended for chairs of scrutiny task groups and committee members. Meanwhile, a current scheme which allows councillors to claim subsistence allowance for duties within the district should be discontinued – and that for out of district requirements, a cap of £25 for meals within a 24-hour time period is added. The Review of Members’ Allowances report was drawn up after the panel reviewed responses from a cross-party range of councillors to a questionnaire and in-person sessions. > “The IRP also met with a number of Officers for factual briefings on political structures and constitutional changes since the last review and to obtain an overview on the challenges facing the council. > > “It became clear during the course of the review that the current allowances were no longer fit for purpose. > > “The majority of the representation received by the IRP supported this view. While a sizeable number of those who made representation to the IRP reported that they could afford to be a councillor regardless of whether the allowances were revised or not, they recognised that they could be a potential barrier for others, particularly for underrepresented groups such as younger people or those in full time employment. > > “As such, the current levels were a potential barrier to wider representation on the council. > > “It is noted that the relatively low level of allowances is partially a function of the fact that they have not been consistently indexed – a cost of living uplift applied – over the years. > > “This observation is also supported by the benchmarking. Also, arising out of the representation received was a view that Lichfield District Council members’ allowances scheme should be more in line with the average paid across similar district councils.” ### “It is never a good time to increase allowances” The report added that while uplifting allowances would help remove any barriers, the figures should not be set as a driver behind those seeking election. > “The IRP notes that the elected members are not representative of the residents of Lichfield District Council, in particular regarding younger working people and women. > > “However, Lichfield District Council is not unique in that respect – it is a fact across all of UK local government, which in turns suggests other factors may be in play when it comes to widening access. > > “To increase representation from traditionally underrepresented groups would require such a boost in allowances that they would have to reflect commercial market rates and thus become an attraction rather than enabler – a principle that had limited support. > > “While there was a general agreement that financial recompense should not be a driver in being an elected member, the majority view in the representation received was that the current level of the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances undervalued the work of members and that the current allowances scheme was unsustainable. > > “If the current situation was maintained, it risks returning to the era when being a councillor was restricted to those who could afford it or were willing to live in straitened circumstances for the sake of public service. > > “While acknowledging that the district residents are facing cost of living pressures, the IRP also noted that elected members are not immune from those same pressures. > > “It is recognised that it is never a good time to increase allowances, but it is clear from the representation received and the evidence reviewed that increases in allowances at this juncture are unavoidable if the Lichfield District Council allowances scheme is to be updated to recognise the increased demands placed on members in the past few years or so and the context of the council being in no overall control.” The IRP recommendations will be debated by councillors at a meeting on 13th May.