Copyright birminghammail
Attempts to resurrect Tamworth's yearly fireworks spectacular following its scrapping have come to nothing. Opposition councillors tried to compel Tamworth Borough Council to reconsider a ruling regarding the annual pyrotechnic celebration. Earlier this year, a decision was reached to relocate the occasion to Statfold Country Park and levy residents £12 for attendance. It has been alleged that the yearly spectacle costs more than £70,000, though assertions that the event requires significantly less funding have been made. The authority maintains that fresh safety obligations under Martyn's Law and escalating expenses have driven the alteration. Nevertheless, earlier this month the council axed the event after community backlash. During this week's extraordinary council gathering, Councillor Martin Summers proposed that efforts be made to stage the event in the castle grounds this year rather than scrapping the occasion altogether. He stated: "I'm quite surprised to be quite honest that we're kind of accepted the fact that we're not having any fireworks this year. I would actually argue that if we tried hard enough, we could have the fireworks this year and make it happen, and I think we should at least try". Nevertheless, Ben Clarke, portfolio holder for housing, homelessness, and planning, sought to block the proposal, asserting it would have compelled the council to allocate funds. The council's chief legal officer dismissed this, confirming the event would not have constituted a major decision exceeding £100,000 and that resources were available in the budget. Councillor Ben Clarke stated that both residents and councillors were consulted regarding the decision, which formed part of efforts to slash £650,000 from spending. He continued: "Every year we ask residents how they want us to prioritise spending for three years in a row. The answer has been consistent – focus resources on essential services and make savings on things like arts, assembly rooms and outdoor events." Opposition councillors argued that citing Martyn's Law as justification for relocating the event was baseless, given that the legislation merely demands additional risk assessments and won't take effect for another two years to allow preparation time. They also contended that the event represented civic pride and security, which would be sacrificed through its cancellation. Councillor Lewis Smith, portfolio holder for people services, engagement, leisure and heritage, explained: "The fireworks in the castle grounds have become a victim of its own success. "It had 24,000 people attending and while this is positive it is causing an issue for public safety and more than anything else the safety of the public comes first. "Other events in the town such as the St Georges Day and Christmas lights are nowhere near the same scale and therefore do not present the dangers and we've mentioned they are still going to be going ahead. "The cost of the fireworks is around £70,000 not the £27,000 that has been reported on social media, that figure has no truth and could be found nowhere in the budget. "The council were being asked to make savings of £650,000 in a world where all services that are not legally required to cut we would be completely irresponsible to increase the already bloated events budget which stood at £308,000. "For comparison Lichfield had a budget of £20,000 for their events and out under the opposition was 15 times higher than that." Councillors were informed that the event generates merely £5,850 in revenue. A staggering £20,000 is allocated solely for the fireworks display, whilst the remainder of the budget covers security, portable facilities, signage, barriers and staffing costs among other expenses. Officials estimated that making the event compliant with Martyn's Law would push costs beyond £100,000. Councillor Richard Kingstone, who brought forward the debate, concluded by stating: "This isn't necessarily about the fireworks, this is about a controlling group that is demonstrating arrogance and doesn't consult properly with the public, with fellow councillors and with businesses." In the end, the motion demanding the Labour administration provide a comprehensive report on the consultation procedures and risk evaluation; reassess the event's location; and guarantee adequate public consultation for future events was rejected. Every Labour councillor voted in opposition.
