Practical proposed steps for Lichfield.
The stages explain what should happen first. They are not promised completion dates. Funding, powers and ongoing costs need to be established before a proposal is adopted.
Proposal
Connect the cinema’s opening work to its surrounding routes
The former Debenhams cinema conversion is advanced, with extra investment proposed; the nearby linear park remains a published design vision.
Proposed response: Keep the building’s remaining decisions separate from the surrounding access and park proposals.
Evidence 1 · Evidence 2
Who could lead: Lichfield District Council and leisure operators; Lichfield District Council.
- Start now
Publish the decision on additional investment and distinguish building completion from operator fit-out.
- Over the next few years
Test access to the cinema from the station and theatre, and explain which park improvements have approval and funding.
- Over the longer term
Review operation, route accessibility and the maintenance cost of completed public spaces.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment: Construction advanced; additional investment proposed; Birmingham Road Linear Park: Design vision published; planning outcome unverified. See the dated project evidence.
Measure: Investment decisions, building and fit-out milestones, usable routes and maintenance performance.
Trade-off: Acquisition, completion and public-space work are different commitments. A proposed park or opening target is not evidence of delivery.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment →
Birmingham Road Linear Park →
Proposal
Make Christian Fields accessible beyond the entrance
The improvements link everyday walking and outdoor activity with inclusive access.
Proposed response: Check the complete route through the site, including connections to the leisure centre.
Evidence
Who could lead: Lichfield District Council and Lichfield City Council with community partners.
- Start now
Publish which access works are finished and prioritise remaining barriers with users of mobility aids and pushchairs.
- Over the next few years
Agree and cost the next path, signage and inclusive-activity improvements with local groups.
- Over the longer term
Maintain routes and habitats and review whether more residents can use the space comfortably.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Christian Fields access and green-space improvements: Upper stairs restored; entrance works and further proposals described. Evidence dated 2026-03-31.
Measure: Continuous accessible routes, completed improvements and maintained facilities.
Trade-off: New steps alone do not provide an accessible route; habitat protection and ease of access both need attention.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Christian Fields access and green-space improvements →
Proposal
Burntwood Park has more inclusive places to spend time
New play, picnic and teenage social facilities have been completed.
Proposed response: Keep the facilities accessible, clean and in good repair.
Evidence
Who could lead: Lichfield District Council.
- Start now
Keep the facilities accessible, clean and in good repair.
- Over the next few years
Listen to younger users and residents with access needs.
- Over the longer term
Maintain a varied offer for different ages.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Burntwood Park improvements: Improvements completed.
Measure: Usable facilities, maintenance and feedback.
Trade-off: Adding facilities requires care and fair access alongside other park uses.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Burntwood Park improvements →
Proposal
The former department store still needs a viable new use
The cinema redevelopment is advanced, but completion and operator fit-out remain.
Proposed response: Explain what is finished and what residents are still waiting for.
Evidence
Who could lead: Lichfield District Council.
- Start now
Explain what is finished and what residents are still waiting for.
- Over the next few years
Track the building work and operator fit-out separately.
- Over the longer term
Review accessibility and use after opening.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment: Construction advanced; additional investment proposed.
Measure: Construction complete, operator ready and public opening confirmed.
Trade-off: Town-centre renewal can be valuable while keeping money tied up before a venue opens.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment →
Proposal
Make room for homes people can afford
Average private rent is £1,103 a month (August 2026) in Lichfield council area. This is £356 lower than the England average for the same month. Homes rented privately ranged from 6.3% in Little Aston & Stonnall to 18.7% in Bourne Vale — a gap of 12.4 percentage points.
Housing costs matter most alongside earnings and the number of affordable homes available. A local average cannot tell us whether a particular household can afford its home.
Who could lead: The housing and planning authorities, housing associations and developers.
- Start now
Publish the local waiting list, temporary accommodation and affordable-home delivery figures together. Start by checking the different needs in Bourne Vale and Little Aston & Stonnall; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test proposed housing sites against affordable-home need, access to work, school places and water capacity.
- Over the longer term
Check whether completed homes reduce unmet need, rather than counting planning permissions as delivery.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Average private rent is £1,103 a month (August 2026) in Lichfield council area. Homes rented privately ranged from 6.3% in Little Aston & Stonnall to 18.7% in Bourne Vale — a gap of 12.4 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Affordable homes completed, households waiting, time in temporary accommodation, and rent compared with local earnings.
Trade-off: More homes can put pressure on infrastructure and land. Affordability requirements also affect development viability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Average monthly rent →
Evidence: Average home price →
Proposal
Plan homes and care around an older population
24% of people in Lichfield council area were aged 65 or over (21 March 2021). People aged 65 or over ranged from 15.8% in Chasetown to 32.8% in Hammerwich with Wall — a gap of 17 percentage points.
Age alone does not mean poor health or a need for care. Accessible homes, reliable transport and support close to home matter as people get older.
Who could lead: Adult social care, local health services, housing providers and transport authorities.
- Start now
Compare the location of older residents with access to care, shops and transport. Start by checking the different needs in Hammerwich with Wall and Chasetown; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Prioritise home adaptations and care capacity in places with the clearest unmet need.
- Over the longer term
Build accessible homes and joined-up care into local development plans.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 24% aged 65 or over; 21 March 2021. People aged 65 or over ranged from 15.8% in Chasetown to 32.8% in Hammerwich with Wall — a gap of 17 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Waits for home adaptations and care, avoidable hospital stays, and accessible homes delivered.
Trade-off: Services need skilled staff and ongoing funding. Age profiles alone cannot measure unmet care need.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 65 or over →
Proposal
Bring support closer to people in poor health
5% of people reported bad or very bad health in Lichfield council area (21 March 2021). Across England, the figure was 5.2%. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.9% in Boley Park to 6.9% in Stowe — a gap of 4 percentage points.
This is how residents described their health in the census. It can reveal differences between neighbourhoods, but does not diagnose illness or measure current waiting times. Age profiles differ between places, so these shares do not measure service quality.
Who could lead: Local health services, public health teams, employers and community organisations.
- Start now
Use neighbourhood evidence to find where poor health and barriers to services overlap. Start by checking the different needs in Stowe and Boley Park; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test accessible local support and publish who is reached and who is missed.
- Over the longer term
Review whether health gaps narrow, alongside housing and employment improvements.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 5% reporting bad or very bad health; 21 March 2021. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.9% in Boley Park to 6.9% in Stowe — a gap of 4 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Access to services and the health gap between neighbourhoods, using comparable age-adjusted measures when available.
Trade-off: A census snapshot is dated. New service decisions also need current needs assessments and residents’ experience.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People reporting bad or very bad health →
Proposal
Connect local skills to local opportunities
33.6% of people aged 16 or over had a degree or equivalent (21 March 2021) in Lichfield council area. Across England, the figure was 33.9%. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 10.2% in Boley Park to 24.1% in Curborough — a gap of 13.9 percentage points.
Qualifications show one part of the skills available locally. They do not show whether people have secure jobs or work that uses those skills.
Who could lead: Employers, colleges, universities and the relevant skills authority.
- Start now
Compare vacancies and employer needs with training available to local residents. Start by checking the different needs in Curborough and Boley Park; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Link training to real jobs, including routes for people without formal qualifications.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained employment and earnings after training, not just course starts.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 33.6% with a degree or equivalent; 21 March 2021. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 10.2% in Boley Park to 24.1% in Curborough — a gap of 13.9 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Sustained jobs, earnings and training completion for residents who face barriers to work.
Trade-off: Training takes time and cannot create demand for jobs on its own. Qualifications are not a complete measure of ability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent →
Evidence: People aged 16+ with no qualifications →
Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment →
Proposal
Target safety work where problems repeat
Mapped police records are available for neighbourhoods in Lichfield council area.
Published locations are approximate and some crimes are not mapped. Counts show recorded incidents, not the chance of an individual becoming a victim.
Who could lead: The local police force, council community safety team and relevant services.
- Start now
Check recurring places and categories alongside local police priorities and residents’ reports.
- Over the next few years
Test focused prevention and support, with a comparison period agreed before the work starts.
- Over the longer term
Publish whether problems fall, move elsewhere or return, and adjust the response.
How to judge progress
Crime evidence and coverage →
Starting point: Use the dated, complete periods shown in Crime and safety; keep anti-social behaviour separate.
Measure: Comparable recorded incidents, repeat victimisation and residents’ reported experience; never a single crude league table.
Trade-off: More reporting can increase recorded crime. Enforcement and support may work differently for different problems.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Proposal
Turn published plans into visible progress
4 named local projects or plans have official evidence in this collection.
A published plan makes responsibilities and intentions easier to inspect. It does not prove that funding is secured or that promised benefits have arrived.
Who could lead: The named project owners and council scrutiny bodies.
- Start now
Put the scope, owner, funding position and next milestone in one public place.
- Over the next few years
Report delivery against the agreed scope and explain delays or changes.
- Over the longer term
Check the benefits residents actually receive after completion.
How to judge progress
Starting point: The dated stages in Projects; unknown costs and funding remain unknown.
Measure: Milestones met, costs against the approved budget, and measured outcomes after delivery.
Trade-off: Delivery reporting takes staff time, but a launch announcement alone cannot show value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment →
Birmingham Road Linear Park →
Christian Fields access and green-space improvements →
Burntwood Park improvements →
Proposal
Target support where disadvantages overlap
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 7.5% in Boley Park to 25.1% in Curborough — a gap of 17.6 percentage points.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
Who could lead: The council's housing, public health and employment teams, with local services.
- Start now
Check current advice and support access in Curborough, using the census pattern as a starting point and asking residents what is missing.
- Over the next few years
Test joined-up housing, work and health support, and publish who takes part, who cannot reach it and what changes.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained outcomes and whether gaps between neighbourhoods narrow, using comparable dates and measures.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 7.5% in Boley Park to 25.1% in Curborough — a gap of 17.6 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 22 of 22 wards.
Measure: Access to support, unresolved housing problems and sustained work or health outcomes. Census percentages alone cannot measure a new programme's success.
Trade-off: Targeting neighbourhoods can miss people in need elsewhere. Avoid labelling every resident by the average for their ward.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages →
Former Debenhams cinema and leisure redevelopment →
Birmingham Road Linear Park →
Christian Fields access and green-space improvements →
Burntwood Park improvements →
