5 November 2025 – Full Council Meeting
Remember, remember, the fifth of November. Not for gunpowder, treason and plot, but for the night Cannock Chase District Council decided it could afford £2.3 million for capital investment in leisure facilities – roughly nine months after insisting it was too skint to keep its cultural venues open.
Funny how that works.
The Opening Act
The evening began with the ritual of electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. Councillor Julie Aston took the Chair’s position, beating Councillors Justin Johnson and Andrea Muckley in what amounted to a fairly straightforward process. Councillor Tony Johnson secured the Vice-Chair role.
Public Questions
Three members of the public had submitted questions. Coleen Worrell, Andrew Moseley, and Ben Farbrother all took their opportunity to hold the council’s feet to the fire. What followed was a masterclass in how to say a lot while meaning very little.
Q1: The Question Nobody Wanted to Answer
Coleen Worrell asked what should have been a straightforward question: given that Councillor David Williams had publicly stated that “open access to performing arts would help to tackle social exclusion, support youth development and provide new opportunities for children and families” just weeks after voting to close the theatre, could the council provide a timeline for replacing the 70,000+ annual visits the theatre had provided?
TL;DR: “You said arts and culture matter. You closed our theatre. When are you replacing what we lost?”
Councillor Steve Thornley’s response (who answered on behalf of Councillor David Walliams) was extraordinary in its comprehensiveness and complete failure to answer the actual question. He talked about funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner. He mentioned Loudmouth Education and Training. He referenced the Culture and Heritage consultation from November 2024. He discussed partnership working. He covered everything except the one thing he was asked: when will you replace what you took away?
The punchline came at the end: “The Council will not be providing any detailed timeline for alternative cultural provisions, named specific venues, capacity figures or annual budget. At this point.”
At this point. Those three words doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there.
When pressed with a supplementary question about whether this was “merely political rhetoric”, Thornley responded that “there is ongoing work all the time” and “nothing is ruled out.” But also, crucially, nothing is ruled in.
The Receipts: Up to 70,000 theatre visits per year. Zero concrete plans to replace them. But don’t worry, there’s “ongoing work.” Always ongoing. Never arriving.
Q2: The Mystery of the Missing Decision-Makers
Andrew Moseley asked who actually decided which stakeholders would attend the Responsible Council Scrutiny Committee meeting on 8th September – the meeting that was supposed to scrutinise the decision to not proceed with a Community Asset Transfer for the theatre.
Why does this matter? Because Councillor Williams initially said cabinet decided, then claimed he’d “misspoken” and that the chair had decided. The chair then confirmed she hadn’t known who was attending until the day of the meeting.
So who actually made the decision to invite the SLC consultants while excluding the theatre trust representatives?
According to Councillor Steve Thornley’s response, officers recommended it, discussed it with the leader and portfolio holder, and the scrutiny chair was “taken on the attendees” at a pre-meeting. Which, if you’re keeping track, means none of the original answers were actually accurate.
The local theatre trust had prepared a detailed rebuttal of the SLC report, highlighting factual errors and misrepresentations. They were told they couldn’t submit it because it would put something on the public record that SLC wouldn’t have the opportunity to publicly answer. Yet at the scrutiny committee, SLC were able to defend their report publicly while the trust remained excluded.
Do you think that provides a balanced view for scrutiny? According to Thornley: “Yes I do.”
Make of that what you will.
Q3: The “Income-Generating” Asset
The third question by Ben Farbrother cut to the heart of something we’ll return to later: Councillor David Williams had recently announced a £2.3 million investment in leisure facilities, describing them as “income generating assets.” Farbrother noted that the current operator has required subsidies for several years and asked for specific annual revenue projections and whether the new contract includes a legally binding profit-share arrangement.
Councillor Steve Thornley’s response: the contract will have provisions to address “financial overperformance”. Due to commercial sensitivity, they can’t share income projections.
Translation: Trust us. We’ve done the maths. We’re just not showing you the workings.
A Moment of Genuine Loss: Remembering Mike Miller
Before we get into the controversy, there was a genuinely moving moment when Chair Julie Aston announced the passing of Mike Miller, founder of CHAPS and a stalwart of the Rotary Club. Multiple councillors paid tribute to his work preserving the district’s mining heritage, including the memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum.
CHAPS are selling calendars (£9.99) featuring interviews with miners and involving schoolchildren to keep that heritage alive. It’s a project that deserves support, and in a meeting full of political positioning, this was a reminder that some things transcend party lines.
Our condolences to Mike’s family and to everyone who worked with him. The district is poorer for his loss.
Local Government Reorganisation
Here’s where the meeting actually functioned as local democracy is supposed to work. The council faced a genuine decision with real consequences: which structure should they recommend for Staffordshire’s reorganisation into unitary authorities?
Five options were on the table:
- Option A: Single unitary for southern/mid Staffordshire
- Option B: Three unitary authorities (smaller units)
- Option C: North-South split
- Option D: East-West split
- Option E: Keep things as they are (not really an option, given government direction)
The Debate
Councillor Lyons delivered a thoughtful, detailed analysis of the risks and options. She covered:
- The disruption to residents during transition
- The loss of local voice with larger authorities
- The financial myth that reorganisation saves money (citing Somerset’s £100m funding gap one year after becoming unitary)
- The impact on accountability and transparency
- The reality that this district is one of the most deprived in Staffordshire
She examined each option forensically:
Option B (three unitary proposal): Too small to achieve economies of scale, risks not being between 400,000-700,000 residents that government guidance suggests, infrastructure still split between authorities.
Option D (East-West): Doesn’t reflect how people actually live, work and travel. Cuts across major transport corridors (A5, A38, A50, M6 Toll). Risks leaving Rugeley and Hednesford as “the poor and under-resourced relations.”
Option C (North-South): Aligns with geography, economy, and shared priorities. Town centre regeneration, the Chase as a shared asset, south-facing transport links to Birmingham, similar education and skills challenges.
This wasn’t grandstanding. This was a councillor who’d done the homework, presenting a reasoned case based on evidence and local knowledge.
Councillor Tony Johnson supported Option A (the single southern/mid Staffordshire unitary), arguing it would create a “major powerhouse to the north of the West Midlands conurbation” with fiscal stability, better services, and clearer lines of accountability for residents. He noted the authority hadn’t “buried our heads in the sand” but had “got on with the job” of evaluating options objectively.
The Green Group, through Councillor Muckley, raised crucial concerns about democratic deficit, particularly for unparished areas like parts of Cannock and Hednesford. They proposed a cross-party working group to consider which areas might need parish councils to ensure local representation isn’t lost. They reluctantly supported Option A as “the best of imperfect options,” while emphasising the need to protect local democracy.
Councillor Jones spoke passionately for Option D (East-West), arguing it would better distribute debt and create authorities of viable size. His argument focused on financial sustainability and avoiding the risks of authorities going bankrupt during transition – a genuine concern given the fiscal pressures facing local government nationally.
What Actually Got Decided
After all the debate, an amendment was proposed, discussed, and voted on. The council ultimately recommended Option A – the single southern/mid Staffordshire unitary – to cabinet.
This is how council should work. Different views, substantive debate, a decision reached through democratic process. Nobody was shut out. The arguments were heard.
It won’t satisfy everyone. It shouldn’t. That’s democracy. But at least this time, the process was transparent and the reasoning was clear.
The £2.3m Leisure Centre Investment
Remember the assertion in early 2025 that the council have no money due to a shortfall in budgets? Remember the theatre and museum closing to save more than £400k? Remember being told repeatedly that there simply wasn’t funding available for cultural provision?
Welcome to the recommendations from cabinet.
Councillor Williams moved that Full Council approve £2.3 million of capital investment for:
- Enhancements to Chase Leisure Centre
- Improvements to Rugeley Leisure Centre
- Upgrades to Cannock Park Golf Course
Specifically, this includes:
- A new soft play area
- A new café
- Paddle tennis courts
- A new irrigation system for the golf course
The Shadow Cabinet Response: Questions, Questions, Questions
Councillor Lyons, speaking for the shadow cabinet, laid out a series of concerns that deserve serious attention:
On Prioritisation: How were these improvements prioritised, particularly given the theatre closure? Where’s the evidence of market research and community input?
On the Golf Course Irrigation: Is replacing a 1980s system that’s currently being watered by hand really the best use of capital?
On Soft Play: These facilities are notoriously difficult to maintain. Other local facilities have closed. What’s the business case?
She noted that Kids 2 Play, a local soft play business, has posted detailed objections online, seeing this as direct competition that could destroy their business.
On Paddle Tennis: Is this just a passing fad? The example of struggling facilities in Birmingham was cited.
On the Café: The leisure centre had a café before. It failed due to lack of use. Why will it work this time?
Officers provided reassurances on each point. But as Lyons correctly noted, “this report comes across very differently” and “still appears to lack detail and evidence that we’ve sufficiently gauged enough public opinion.”
She abstained. Not against the principle of improving leisure centres, but against proceeding without proper evidence and community engagement.
The Contradictions Start Stacking Up
Councillor Mawle pointed out a glaring inconsistency: a demand modelling report states that the Chase Centre’s squash courts “would reach top 75% in terms of performance” and are “a valuable and attractive asset for the site, offering potential for future expansion.”
So why, he asked, are we closing one of them?
His other concern: “Ever since I’ve been a councillor, officers have said, and the administration have said we’ve got no money. And then suddenly we’re having a new operator come in and this just looks like a sweetener.”
Councillor Haden echoed the frustration: “When [the leisure centre] had its last facelift, we had a coffee shop. And the coffee shop has closed because of lack of use. But yet the Theatre Trust put forward a fantastic proposal, aiming big, including eateries, coffee shops and we couldn’t support them.”
Councillor Muckley raised concerns across the board:
On Soft Play: Direct competition with Kids 2 Play, The Beach Hut, facilities in Cannock town centre, the brand new Play Village, and F.A. Entertainment’s recently installed soft play. “I just feel that this is irresponsible of us.”
On the Cafe: She’d been told by senior officers less than a year ago that a cafe at Stafford Borough Council wasn’t making money and wouldn’t work. “Why are we doing it now?”
On Timing: “Why are we investing in this before a new tender is agreed? Are we sweetening a deal for someone?”
On Future Responsibility: “We’re moving into a unitary authority. We will be owing this money. The unitary authority will be responsible for paying this back.”
On Climate Impact: The report states there’s no impact on climate change. “What will these soft play areas be made of? How are people going to get there? Will the café be zero waste?”
Thornley, clearly rattled, took exception to the suggestion of “conspiracy theories” about who they were satisfying. Councillor Muckley clarified she wasn’t suggesting officers were taking backhanders, but rather questioning whether potential operators had made the investment a condition of taking on the contract.
It’s a fair question. And it went unanswered.
Councillor Freeman: The Trust Land Issue
Perhaps most concerningly, Councillor Freeman raised planning and legal issues around the paddle courts. If they’re to be placed on trust land, they’ll need:
- Planning permission
- Approval from the charity commission
- Consultation with all relevant parties
These aren’t minor procedural hurdles. They’re fundamental requirements that don’t appear to have been fully worked through before asking Full Council to approve £2.3 million.
“Investment in the Future”
Councillor Thornley, responding to the barrage, made several key points:
- The cafe will serve park users as well as leisure centre users. It’s at the front of the building, accessible without going through the barriers. Since the park development, there’s “constant use” and people asking for refreshment facilities.
- The funding is from Public Works Loan Board (central government), not a bank.
- The soft play is “modest in scale” and designed to work with the pool, studios and park to create a “cohesive offer.”
- The independent modelling says it will pay back and improve service resilience.
- On climate change, he conceded: “I think you’re right about the no impact on climate change. We must do better on that.”
The Vote
The recommendations passed. But the abstentions and votes against told their own story. This wasn’t the unanimous support you’d expect for a “no-brainer” investment.
What This All Means
Eight months ago, this council closed the cultural facilities of the town to save more than £400,000. They told us they couldn’t afford it. They told us the community asset transfer proposal for the theatre wasn’t viable. They told us there was no money.
At this meeting, they approved borrowing £2.3 million for leisure centre improvements, at an annual cost of £77k – £141k per year for the next three decades. Not essential repairs. Not critical infrastructure. Improvements. Enhancements. Nice-to-haves.
The business case? Commercial sensitivity prevents them sharing income projections. Trust us, they say. The modelling works.
Where have we heard that before?
The consultation? Officers did demand modelling and “soft market testing.” The local Theatre Trust did extensive community engagement, financial modelling, and business planning. One was deemed insufficient. The other is apparently fine.
The competition with local businesses? Kids 2 Play are understandably furious that the council is using public money to compete with their private enterprise.
The climate impact? This £2.3 million investment has “no impact” on climate change. It’s remarkable how nothing this council does ever impacts climate change, according to their own reports.
The Uncomfortable Questions This Raises
- If you can borrow £2.3 million now, why couldn’t you invest £400,000 annually in the existing cultural provisions then? It doesn’t matter whether it is capital or revenue budgets – it’s all paid for by the tax payer in the end.
- If cafes at leisure centres will work now, why did they fail before, and why weren’t they viable at the theatre?
- If this investment is based on solid business modelling, why can’t you share the projections with the public whose money you’re going to use to pay back the borrowing required?
- If commercial sensitivity prevents sharing leisure centre income projections, why was the local Theatre Trust’s entire business plan subjected to public scrutiny and picked apart?
- If you’re worried about the burden of debt on a new unitary authority, why are you adding £2.3 million to it?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. They deserve answers. Proper answers. Not the kind where you talk for five minutes about partnership working and community wellbeing without addressing the actual point.
The One Bright Spot
To be fair – and we promised we’d acknowledge good work when we see it – the Local Government Reorganisation debate was genuinely productive.
Councillors from different parties engaged with the substance of the proposals. They presented evidence-based arguments. They considered the implications for residents. They debated in good faith.
Councillor Lyons’ analysis was thorough and well-reasoned. The Green Group raised important concerns about democratic deficit while still participating constructively. Councillor Jones argued passionately for his preferred option.
This is what local democracy should look like. Different views, substantive debate, transparent decision-making.
It can be done. They proved it tonight. Which makes everything else even more frustrating.
The Bottom Line
Ten months ago Cannock Chase District Council told its residents it was too poor to keep their theatre and museum open.
At this meeting, it found £2.3 million for leisure centre enhancements.
You cannot expect residents to believe that money is the reason their cultural venues are closed when you can find millions for everything else.
The vote was held. The recommendations passed. “Democracy” happened.
But the questions remain. And they’re not going away.
Watch the full meeting recording at the start of this article once it’s available.
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