4th September 2025 – The night the Prince of Wales Theatre’s fate was sealed (again)
There’s something darkly comedic about watching democracy performed rather than practiced. The latest cabinet meeting had all the hallmarks: the procedural ground rules, the five-minute speaking limits, the careful clarification that this was a “meeting held in public, not a public meeting.”
Let’s be clear about what happened. The cabinet rejected the Cannock Chase Theatre Trust’s Community Asset Transfer bid. The vote was unanimous among Labour cabinet members. The theatre stays closed. But the real story isn’t in the vote – it’s in everything that led to it.
Three Weeks to Save a Theatre
Shadow Cabinet member Councillor Lyons laid out the timeline with surgical precision. The trust had three weeks to prove they could run the theatre sustainably. Three weeks. No access to past council data. No ability to secure charitable status without confirmation of transfer. Just three weeks to build a business case that even the Theatres Trust, the national advisory public body for theatres, would later describe as an impossible task, noting that such evaluations typically require eighteen months or more.
The trust raised £12,000 by the submission deadline. That figure now stands at £35,000. Yet the cabinet’s report still references the original numbers. When challenged on this, Deputy Leader Councillor Williams explained that consultants take a “snapshot evaluation of a fixed point.”
Translation: we set you an impossible deadline, you somehow exceeded expectations anyway, and now we’re penalising you for not having submitted information that didn’t exist when you submitted your bid.
The Independence Question
Here’s where it gets interesting. The evaluation was conducted by the same consultants who previously advised the council on the very leisure provision and contract management by IHL (Inspiring Healthy Lifestyles), whose failures necessitated this entire process. They even boast about this relationship in the evaluation report itself.
When shadow cabinet members raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest, Councillor Williams responded with what can only be described as theatrical outrage. He was “really shocked” they’d questioned the “impartiality and professionalism” of the consultants and officers.
But here’s the thing: asking whether an assessor has a conflict of interest isn’t an attack on anyone’s integrity. It’s basic due diligence. It’s Democracy 101. And the fact that such a question prompted such defensiveness rather suggests it touched a nerve.
The Meeting That Wasn’t
This bit deserves your full attention, because it reveals exactly how procedural manoeuvring becomes a substitute for transparency.
Shadow Cabinet invited cabinet members to attend their meeting to discuss the theatre bid. Leader Councillor Johnson accepted, advising Deputy Leader Councillor Williams, Portfolio Holder Councillor Wilson, and Resources Portfolio Holder Councillor Prestwood would also be in attendance. Excellent – cross-party discussion before a major decision. Democracy in action.
Here’s what makes this farcical: Shadow Cabinet always meets virtually. Not sometimes. Not when convenient. Always. And why? Because that’s what council officers requested. Chief Executive Tim Clegg specifically advised that in-person meetings might be “onerous and problematic for the Leadership Team.” Shadow Cabinet had actually asked to meet in person last year and were told virtual was better.
So naturally, the day before this crucial meeting, the Leader insisted it had to be in-person.
Twenty-four hours’ notice. One shadow cabinet member was in Wales. Another was at work and had booked a private room to join virtually before commuting home. Others needed childcare arrangements. Officers themselves had a separate meeting scheduled at Stafford Borough Council that evening.
Shadow Cabinet explained they’d have been happy to accommodate an in-person meeting with reasonable notice, but twenty-four hours wasn’t possible. They offered to proceed virtually – the format officers had specifically requested they use.
The response? The Chief Executive, writing on behalf of the Leader, informed them that if the meeting remained virtual, no cabinet members would attend. Councillor Williams presented this at the cabinet meeting as shadow cabinet “declining to meet.”
Let’s be crystal clear about what happened here: the council established a virtual meeting format at their own request, then used that format as justification to avoid a meeting about their most controversial decision in years. When offered the exact format they’d previously insisted upon, they called it unacceptable.
What’s interesting is what this reveals about priorities. In a council genuinely committed to cross-party discussion before major decisions, you’d expect some flexibility when scheduling proves difficult. Perhaps a hybrid option. Perhaps rescheduling to a time that worked for everyone, even if that meant a slight delay. Perhaps recognising that the substance of the discussion matters more than its format.
Instead, we got procedural rigidity that conveniently meant shadow cabinet couldn’t ask their questions until the cabinet meeting – where they’d be limited to five minutes each with no right to debate or ask follow-up questions.
Both sides can claim they were technically correct about what happened. But only one side ended up avoiding detailed scrutiny before a major vote. Funny how that worked out.
Follow the Money
Chief Executive Tim Clegg delivered what seemed like the most honest moment of the evening when explaining why decisions needed to happen quickly. The Levelling Up Fund money, he said, expires in March 2027. The funding arrangements are “extremely constrained.” They’ve already had one extension. If the council doesn’t commit those funds soon, they’ll have to give millions back to the government.
“We only have a matter of months to get into contract,” he explained. This was why the trust couldn’t have more time. This was why decisions needed to be rushed. This was the immovable constraint that made flexibility impossible.
Except Project Daylight has been informed by a reputable source that two days before this cabinet meeting, council officers were notified that they’d been awarded greater flexibility to change the planned usage of Levelling Up funds, along with a deadline extension until March 2028.
March 2028. Not March 2027. An extra year. And greater flexibility on how the money could be used.
If this information is accurate – and we have no reason to doubt our source – then the Chief Executive sat in that meeting and explained how desperately time-constrained everything was, based on a deadline he allegedly knew had just been extended by twelve months.
The Civil Service Code requires officers to “set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully” and not “ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions.” It’s the statutory basis for how council officers should conduct themselves. The question isn’t just whether information was withheld – it’s whether the information cabinet received met the standards officers are legally obligated to maintain.
We cannot prove the exact date this information reached officers. But we can prove what the Chief Executive said in that meeting, and we can prove what he didn’t say. Project Daylight will be submitting Freedom of Information requests to establish exactly when officers were notified of any deadline extensions or increased flexibility, and whether this information was shared with cabinet members before they voted.
This isn’t just about the theatre anymore. This is about whether residents can trust that they’re being given accurate information when decisions are being made. The Civil Service Code exists precisely because cabinet members and residents need to trust that the advice officers provide is complete and honest. When cabinet makes decisions based on advice about constraints and timelines, those members are entitled to expect they’re getting the full picture. If they weren’t, that’s not just a transparency issue – it’s a question of whether statutory obligations were met.
And let’s not forget: the Prince of Wales Theatre was a central feature of that Levelling Up bid. The council used the theatre to secure funding. Now they’re using that same funding, and false urgency about its constraints, as justification for why community ownership can’t work.
What Wasn’t Said
Councillor Prestwood, Resources and Transformation Portfolio Leader, spoke passionately about losing sleep over the reports. She insisted the cabinet cares deeply about the theatre. She’s probably telling the truth.
But caring isn’t competence. Good intentions don’t create transparent processes. And “we really wanted this to work” rings hollow when accompanied by eighteen-month evaluation frameworks compressed into three weeks, consultants evaluating their own previous advice, and meeting requests handled with procedural rigidity designed to avoid scrutiny.
The Vote
When it finally came, the vote was swift. All in favour of rejecting the Community Asset Transfer? Show of hands. Carried. Meeting adjourned.
As the public gallery voiced their anger, Councillor Williams suggested a short recess to continue with the rest of the agenda.
What Happens Now
Councillor Preece attempted to add a resolution confirming the council would continue speaking with groups interested in the theatre’s future. Even this modest gesture produced confusion. How long? Under what framework? The Chief Executive warned about the “constraints” of spending timelines.
As the public gallery voiced their anger, someone shouted a request for the trust to meet with cabinet to discuss next steps. It’s the sort of request that will probably be politely ignored – after all, the public are meant to be silent during these things. Democracy: terms and conditions apply.
The Prince of Wales Theatre closure was approved in February’s budget. This meeting wasn’t about whether the theatre would close – that decision had already been made. It was about whether community ownership could save it. The answer, delivered with procedural precision and defensive outrage, was no.
The question Project Daylight will keep asking is: was that answer inevitable, or just convenient?
Watch the full meeting recording at the start of this article.
If you spot any errors in our reporting, please let us know at hello@projectdaylight.co.uk
Project Daylight is an independent journalism project focused on transparency and accountability in Cannock Chase District Council.
Leave a Reply