- Lichfield City Council Report 11/05/20
So apparently Zoom can be used for more than just pub quizzes! We used the platform to host the first ‘virtual’ meeting in the Council’s history this week due to social distancing requirements.
Much of the meeting was spent making sure that the Council could continue to work given the restrictions; delegating planning decisions to ward Councillors; extending the period of office for the Mayor, Sherriff, etc.; and making sure that we can alter the meeting calendar as needed. If you’d like to see the full agenda, it can be accessed here: https://www.lichfield.gov.uk/Full_Council_837.aspx
The real business of the evening came down to two points, both related to the pandemic. The first was a motion brought by the Liberal Democrats which was to set up a working party with the aim of supporting the economic recovery after the virus. This took a long time to reach a resolution on as there were two amendments to make the proposal more competent, both of which were carried. The first was, rather than create another talking shop, to commit the council to work with the Lichfield Place Board which is almost a working group of different organisations, including Lichfield BID, LDC and SCC and is already working to do this. The second amendment was our own, moved by me and seconded by Cllr Anketell to specifically mention third sector organisations in the motion, rather than just ‘residents and businesses.’ Given the huge work being done by Lichfield Foodbank, Live at Home, Helping Each other and dozens of other groups at the moment, we felt it was essential that these groups receive support even after the crisis.
Second was passing a dispensation for member absence. Usually we’d never agree to a blank cheque for Councillors to miss meetings, but in this situation we agreed the dispensation. The reasoning here is that we can’t hold a by-election before May 2021 even if a Councillor did miss 6 months of meetings and get removed from Council, and so we wouldn’t be able to elect a replacement anyway. Having said that I did make sure to raise a point about Councillor attendance, particularly given that one Leomansley Councillor has a City Council attendance of just 27%, a Chadsmead Councillor is currently at 42% and 11 others are below 80%. All of our Labour Councillors have attendance above 90%.
- Lichfield City Council Report 02/03/20
Dave Robertson, Lichfield City Council Labour Group Leader
Spending, Grants and OpennessA much smaller City Council agenda for the March meeting as there was no budget to be set and few significant items of business outside of the work done by committees.
The first reason we had to speak at this meeting though, was to challenge the accuracy of the minutes which had been kept from the previous meeting. Anyone who knows me will know that arguments about meeting minutes are one of my real bug-bears and personally I’ll avoid this wherever possible. However, given that the minutes completely omitted two votes that were held in the previous meeting we thought it was important to raise this.
There was no mention of the proposal, moved by myself and seconded by Cllr Ball, to increase Guildhall booking charges by a modest amount, a proposal which even some Tory Councillors voted with the opposition. Similarly, there was no mention of the idea, moved by Cllr Ball and seconded by me, to ensure that £1million of the windfall monies be kept in a separate reserve. However, Conservative Councillors voted down our comments here and the minutes were not amended. So much for openness and transparency!
We then, as ever, approved the minutes of different committees and discussed any recommendations from these. This meeting had two to consider, one regarding the Johnson Birthplace Museum, which the Council owns. The recommendation here was to authorise a significant, but necessary, spend on improvements which will safeguard the museum and its contents. This was subject to a very long discussion at our group meeting but we did draw the same conclusion as the committee and so we were happy to support.
The other committee to report to this Council meeting was the Grants Advisory committee. For anyone who doesn’t know, the City Council does provide Grants for organisations in the City to help them undertake good works. We received 31 applications, of which 29 were accepted, meaning that over £29,000 will be given to these good causes. However, there is still some unused budget available, as there was last year and so if you are aware of any community group in the City which would benefit from this type of funding, please do put them in touch!
We then moved on to other matters, such as electing the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Sheriff elect for each of which only one name was put forwards and approved the calendar for next years’ meetings with a couple of minor changes.
Finally we discussed leasing some land in St Johns to the canal trust so that they can continue their project. There had been some concerns raised by local residents which had been discussed at length by the ward Councillors and some amendments were made to the lease based on this, meaning we could support the proposal.
- Lichfield City Council Report 27/01/20
Dave Robertson, Lichfield City Council Labour Group Leader
Budgets, Budgets, BudgetsThe best way to start a new calendar year at Council – dive feet first in to Council finances!
It was a really important agenda at Council this month as we look at next year’s budget, including Council spending and the increase to Council Tax for 2020/21, but there were several other important decisions to make too.
Before we arrived at the financials a member of the public had approached the Council to ask a question about fly-posting. This related specifically to some Brexit-themed stickers which had been stuck to lampposts owned by the City. There then proceeded some point scoring and arguments between Lib Dem and Conservative Councillors which got nowhere close to a resolution. Whilst this was pretty much a waste of everyone’s time, it is a good example of the public question though. Anyone who lives in the city can ask questions of the City Council in this manner. If you’d like to take advantage of this in the future please get in touch with Dave Robertson via
We then moved on to considering the recommendation of working groups that had been set up to look at the Neighbourhood Plan, Markets and Sheriff’s Ride. The groups had all made recommendations to Council that needed to be passed by a vote before being acted on. Many of these recommendations made good sense and we were pleased to support, particularly around installing new LED street lighting, helping to pay for new doors at Curborough Community Centre and moving the Farmers Market from a Thursday to a Sunday.
We did disagree with the Sheriff’s Ride group recommendations though. The Sheriff’s Ride is an ancient tradition in the City and is a pretty much unique event across the country. However, costs this year have spiralled as certain security and road closure costs, which were previously provided by Staffs police for free, are now costing over £7000 per year. This has more than doubled the cost of the event which is now costing more than £13,000. Whilst we recognise that this tradition is part of the history of the City, we didn’t feel that we could justify 1.5% of the total City Council budget being spent on a single event which is attended by so few people from Lichfield. On this point we abstained as we don’t want to see the end of a City tradition but could not accept the additional cost to public finances.
After this we did move on to a long discussion about various financial points which were either related to-, or parts of the Council budget.
The first point we raised here was to look again at the very modest proposed increases in charges for room hire at the Guildhall. Our group made the case that bookings remained strong and there is already very limited weekend availability for the whole of 2020, and that the building as a whole costs almost £90,000 (an average of over £6.50 per household in Lichfield) more to run than we receive in income from it. We proposed a 5% increase to charges rather than the Conservative proposal of 3%. This would not have raised £90,000 in a year but we made the case that the additional revenue would have decreased the burden on our finances without a significant drop in bookings. The amendment was narrowly lost but there was some cross party support from the Liberal Democrats and from some Conservative members. We’re quite hopeful that a more financially sound proposal will be on the cards for next year’s budget.
We then raised two points about our current spending, namely that our grants budget was underspent by almost £2,500 this year which means that local good causes, not-for-profits and community groups will; not have benefited from this additional support. We made the point that the Council could do more to ensure that this money is allocated in future and that we, as Councillors could do more to advertise the grant applications. We similarly raised our concerns about the spiralling costs of Civic functions, which are likely to overspend by £9,000 this year. Much of this is due to the Sheriff’s Ride, but other events have cost almost £2,000 more than expected this year. One event was 127% over budget!
Our final points to make on the budget were the lack of oversight around an enormous windfall that the City Council benefited from recently and about the use of reserves to cover up financial loses. In December the City Council agreed to sell a plot of land for a significant sum of money. This huge capital contribution has been temporarily placed in to general reserves until the audit committee meets later in the year, but our group feels strongly that £1million should be placed in an identified reserve so that it is not frittered away without the benefits being felt by the people of the City. The City Council budget sees the precept increase by a whopping 7% but still predicts that we will run a shortfall of £130,000. This shortfall will have to be made up by reserves which we could not accept the budget in this form and voted against it.
The final discussion point of the meeting was around the City Centre Masterplan Consultation and the City Council’s formal response. On this point we had all been invited to email our thoughts to the Town Clerk before the meeting. Apparently this had escaped the Liberal Democrats who wanted to raise their thoughts in a meeting rather than in writing where it is most easily done. The proposals were to undermine a central plank of the masterplan and obstruct sightlines with an overpass over Birmingham Road and to increase car parking where there is already over capacity. Unsurprisingly the proposals were not approved by Council. Finally we were able to change the response to support the idea of a circular Minster Pool walk.