16th September 2025 – When two days makes all the difference
On 2nd September 2025, the government published details of its funding simplification programme on Gov.UK. The announcement was clear: multiple local government funding streams, including Levelling Up Funds, would merge into a new single stream called the Local Regeneration Fund. Deadlines would extend to March 2028. The bureaucracy around changing projects would be stripped away.
Two days later, on 4th September, Cannock Chase District Council’s cabinet met to decide the fate of the Prince of Wales Theatre. Chief Executive Tim Clegg explained that decisions needed to happen quickly. The Levelling Up Fund money, he said, expires in March 2027. The funding arrangements are “extremely constrained.” 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,” Clegg explained.
The theatre bid was rejected. The deadline pressure was cited as one of the key constraints.
Two weeks after the government’s public announcement – 12 days after the cabinet vote – the Economic Prosperity Scrutiny Committee met. Dean from the regeneration team provided an update on town centre regeneration. He explained the good news about funding flexibility. The deadline was March 2028, not 2027. An extra year. The bureaucratic requirements had been simplified. Projects could be changed without formal government approval.
“We’ve received clarification from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that the levelling up monies are secured as part of a wider programme of funding simplification,” Dean explained.
Let’s be clear about the timeline:
- 2nd September: Government publicly announces funding simplification.
- 4th September: Cabinet told deadlines are urgent and constraints are tight.
- 16th September: Scrutiny committee told deadlines have extended and flexibility has increased.
The government announcement on 2nd September was public. It wasn’t leaked. It wasn’t confidential. It was published on Gov.UK for anyone to read.
The announcement would have been sent to S151 officers (Chief Financial Officers) and Chief Executives across the country, either on 2nd September alongside the public announcement or potentially earlier through pre-briefing channels that local government uses for major policy changes.
Tim Clegg, as Chief Executive, and the S151 officer, Chris Forrester, responsible for financial planning, would have received this information.
Which means on 4th September, when cabinet members were told that funding deadlines were tight and constraints were severe, the officers advising them either knew about the extension and flexibility, or had failed to check government announcements made 48 hours earlier about the specific funding stream under discussion.
Neither option is particularly reassuring.
Cabinet members vote based on the information they’re given. If that information is incomplete – particularly on something as fundamental as deadlines and flexibility – then the decision-making process is compromised.
Perhaps there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation. Perhaps the government announcement on 2nd September came with caveats that weren’t included in the public documentation. Perhaps officers needed time to understand the implications before briefing cabinet. Perhaps the urgency expressed on 4th September related to different aspects of the funding that weren’t affected by the simplification.
Or perhaps cabinet made a decision about the theatre without knowing that they had an extra year and significantly more flexibility than they were told.
What This Means For The Theatre Decision
Councillor Lyons asked the obvious question during the scrutiny committee: given this new flexibility, and given there’s now a significant allocation of levelling up funding that’s effectively unallocated following the theatre decision, could a new proposal for cultural provision potentially be considered?
Dean’s response was diplomatic: “We’re looking at proposals to utilise the remaining money… That detail will be in the report that we’re working on.”
Translation: yes, theoretically. But don’t hold your breath.
Here’s what we know: cabinet was told the Cannock Chase Theatre Trust’s community bid couldn’t work because of tight deadlines and funding constraints. The bid was rejected on 4th September. The government had publicly announced extended deadlines and relaxed constraints on 2nd September.
If cabinet had known about the extension and flexibility, would the vote have been different? We can’t know. But they deserved to have that information before making the decision.
The money that was earmarked for saving the theatre is now being reallocated. Officers are “working on proposals.” Scrutiny will review those proposals when they emerge, probably in December or early 2026.
The theatre remains closed. The community bid has been kicked to the dirt. And the funding flexibility that could have made a difference was announced two days before the vote that killed it.
The £1.5 Million Question
Before we get to the genuinely positive stuff in this meeting – and there was some – let’s discuss the Northern Gateway subway situation, because it’s both absurd and instructive.
The council was considering spending approximately £1.5 million to fill in a subway near Beecroft Road car park and create a new pedestrian crossing and public realm (planting some greenery and laying new paths etc). This was part of the original regeneration plans, presented as creating a “welcoming entrance” to the town centre.
The problem? Staffordshire County Council’s detailed costings came back at almost triple the original estimate.
Councillor Thornley asked the question that needed asking: “Why are we spending money to fill in a hole when we’ve already got steps there? What’s the purpose?”
It’s a fair point. The official reasoning has evolved over time. Initially it was about safety – subways can feel unsafe, particularly at night. Then it emerged that a perception survey done years ago identified concerns. Then it was about creating a better gateway to the town centre.
What’s revealing isn’t the proposed project itself – reasonable people can disagree about whether filling in subways improves town centres. What’s revealing is what happened when the costs came back.
Councillor Freeman, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and High Streets, described herself as “astounded” at the figures from Amey. The costs were challenged. Officers have been “pushing very hard with the county about the cost.” And critically, the council is now genuinely considering alternatives rather than just proceeding because it was in the original plan.
Councillor Hill did a straw poll among residents in his ward. Nine out of ten said they’re quite happy using the subway, though they might feel vulnerable at night – but wouldn’t use it at night anyway, they’d be with friends.
Michelle Smith, Economic Development and Regeneration Manager, was admirably pragmatic: “The solution at the time was filling the subway. If that’s not the right solution now, because of the cost, because of value for money, we go back to the original problem we’re trying to solve, which is how do we make the entrance into the town centre better. We’re not wedded to one solution.”
This is how it should work. Money gets allocated to solve a problem. The proposed solution turns out to cost three times the estimate. Instead of proceeding anyway or quietly abandoning it, you reconsider whether that solution still makes sense, or whether the money could be better used elsewhere.
Dean confirmed they’re reviewing all options – better lighting, alternative improvements – before making a recommendation to cabinet.
This is competent governance. Question the costs. Consider alternatives. Make decisions based on value for money rather than just sticking to the original plan.
Now, if only this same flexibility and willingness to reconsider had been applied to community organisations trying to save cultural venues when their circumstances changed and their fundraising exceeded expectations… but we digress.
When Scrutiny Actually Works
Credit where it’s due: the scrutiny committee asked good questions throughout this meeting.
Councillor Lyons immediately flagged that there’s now a significant allocation of levelling up funding without a confirmed use following the theatre decision, and asked whether this could be monitored as a standing agenda item. Smart move – keeping that money visible and ensuring the committee tracks how it gets reallocated.
Councillor Hill raised practical concerns about car parking capacity if the town centre regeneration succeeds in bringing more people in. It’s the sort of forward-thinking question that prevents problems rather than just reacting to them.
Councillor Mawle asked about sequencing – when does work on Beecroft Road car park happen relative to the highway works? Answer: you can’t resurface the car park until you know what you’re doing with the highways, because the car park will be needed during construction. Straightforward question, straightforward answer, but it’s the kind of detail that matters.
And multiple councillors pushed back on vague reassurances, asking for specifics on timescales, costs, and decision-making processes.
This is what scrutiny committees are supposed to do. Not grandstanding, not political theatre, just asking the questions that ensure decisions are properly thought through and costs are justified.
The Positive Story Nobody’s Talking About
Dean and Michelle’s Economic Development Team deserves genuine recognition, because the UK Shared Prosperity Fund programme is a success story.
The numbers are impressive. The council was allocated £998,580 for 2025/26, with a hard deadline of March 2026 – spend it or return it to government. Unlike the Levelling Up Fund, there’s no possibility of extensions.
Rather than panicking, the team looked at what had worked in previous years, calculated delivery risk, and designed a programme that’s actually achieving results.
The “Grants for Growth” scheme launched with an in-house application process that’s straightforward rather than bureaucratic. They’ve run workshops where officers literally walk businesses through the application forms to maximise their chances. Twenty businesses attended the first workshop. Five grants have been approved so far, with more in the pipeline.
The youth aspirations and life skills programmes exceeded their targets by more than fifty percent. These are young people accessing employability support, gaining qualifications, accessing opportunities they wouldn’t have had otherwise.
The Growth Hub arrangement provides businesses with a dedicated advisor, essentially an extension of the economic development team, offering free support to existing businesses and people thinking about starting up.
Beat the Cold and the Benefits Advisor programmes have been extended because they work. Climate change feasibility studies are underway. The Rugeley town centre masterplan is being procured. Union Street play area improvements are progressing.
The evidence suggests they genuinely are trying to deliver as much as possible with the resources available.
Michelle herself was characteristically straightforward about why UK SPF is working better than some other funding streams: “This fund is far, far easier to manage and to spend” compared to the bureaucracy of previous programmes.
Councillor Hill noted: “I’ve come to a lot of scrutiny committee meetings, and I always end up leaving despondent and utterly miserable… I think [your team] does the best you can do with what you’re given. Thank you.”
The Cultural Question
Towards the end of the meeting, Councillor Hill raised the inevitable question about arts and culture provision in the district, given recent closures.
The exchange was instructive. Hill suggested scrutiny could look at what cultural provision exists and where it could go in future. Councillor Thornley pointed out this is more of a policy development question than a scrutiny issue. Dean clarified that scrutiny’s role is examining executive decisions and proposals, not setting its own policy agenda.
But here’s what’s interesting: when discussing what scrutiny might focus on through task and finish reviews, Councillor Lyons asked a direct question: “Is town centre regeneration going to be standing on future agendas? The reason I ask is there’s quite a significant allocation that’s now unallocated effectively. I think we should very much be monitoring the progress of that allocation.”
The committee agreed this should be a standing item.
Translation: the scrutiny committee is going to keep watching how that theatre money gets spent.
When Councillor Mawle raised the arts and culture question again, Dean’s response was diplomatic but clear: “Officers are working on proposals and they will come forward to cabinet. This committee then has the opportunity to scrutinise those proposals. We haven’t got them available now… but if it’s on the agenda as a standing item, we can return to that in December.”
So the theatre money isn’t forgotten. The question of cultural provision hasn’t disappeared. It’s just moved into the “officers are working on proposals” phase, with scrutiny keeping an eye on progress.
Whether those proposals will include anything resembling community cultural venues remains to be seen. But at least the committee is paying attention.
What This Meeting Revealed
Strip away the jargon and procedure, and this meeting told a story about what local government looks like when it’s functioning reasonably well – and what questions demand clear answers.
The economic development team is delivering programmes that work, achieving measurable outcomes, and being transparent about progress and challenges.
The scrutiny committee is asking good questions, pushing back on unjustified costs, and insisting on value for money rather than just rubber-stamping proposals.
Officers like Dean and Michelle are being candid about constraints, realistic about timescales, and willing to reconsider plans when circumstances change.
But here’s what sits uncomfortably alongside all this competence: a government announcement on 2nd September about funding flexibility that wasn’t mentioned when cabinet voted on 4th September to reject a community bid that had been told time was running out.
Cabinet members rely on officers to provide complete, accurate information. That’s how the system works. If a government announcement fundamentally changes the constraints on a funding stream, and a major decision about that funding is scheduled two days later, cabinet needs to know.
The scrutiny committee has done its job by ensuring town centre regeneration remains on the agenda and that the unallocated theatre funding stays visible.
Now we’ll see what emerges when officers bring forward their proposals.
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