The Sandwell Design Code: Community-Led… Apparently
Sandwell Council would like us to know — repeatedly — that its new Design Code is “community-led”, “rooted in local knowledge”, and shaped by extensive engagement.
Which is impressive.
Because a great many people in Sandwell had absolutely no idea it was happening.
A consultation that happened… quietly
The Design Code engagement opened on 11 July 2025 and closed on 15 September 2025.
That period coincided with:
- summer holidays
- reduced community meetings
- lower volunteer availability
- and the time of year when councils are traditionally… less visible
This isn’t illegal.
But it does raise a basic question:
Who exactly was supposed to know this was happening?
There is little evidence of:
- borough-wide promotion
- direct contact with established community networks
- systematic outreach to Friends Groups, park groups, nature reserve volunteers, canal groups, or civic societies
Instead, awareness appears to have depended on:
- stumbling across the council website
- already following council social media
- or being “in the loop”
That is not broad engagement.
That is passive discovery.
Comments ≠ people (but they’re treated like they are)
The Council and its consultants frequently refer to:
- “hundreds of comments”
- “strong feedback”
- “clear themes from engagement”
What they do not clearly publish is:
- how many individual people took part
- how many distinct organisations contributed
- how representative participation was across the borough
This matters.
One person can submit multiple comments.
One pop-up event can generate dozens of comments.
One consultant spreadsheet can make very small numbers look very busy.
Comments are not participants.
And without publishing participant numbers, claims of “community-led” design are, at best, elastic.
Enter the Community Design Panel (no names, please)
We are told that a Community Design Panel is “central” to shaping the Design Code.
We are not told:
- who sits on it
- how many people applied
- how many were rejected
- how members were selected
- who approved it
- or who it reports to
We are simply asked to trust that it is:
“as representative of the borough as possible”
Which is convenient — because representation without transparency is just assertion.
This panel:
- meets repeatedly
- steers and reviews content
- influences a document that will carry planning weight
And yet operates, publicly at least, as a nameless advisory body.
That’s not empowerment.
That’s curation.
Friends Groups: deeply knowledgeable, strangely absent
Across Sandwell, Friends Groups and civic volunteers:
- maintain parks and green spaces
- manage nature reserves
- understand local safety, flooding, access, and maintenance issues
- deal daily with the consequences of poor design
They are the people who:
- know which paths flood
- where lighting fails
- where antisocial behaviour concentrates
- and which “nice design ideas” collapse in reality
And yet there is no evidence they were systematically engaged as a sector.
Instead, their place seems to have been taken by:
- pop-up conversations
- short surveys
- and a small, curated panel
That is not building on local knowledge.
That is skipping it.
A consultation designed for planners, not people
The current “Have Your Say” consultation asks residents to comment on:
- spatial typologies
- character area maps
- future development categories
- borough-wide design frameworks
Often with 150–200 characters to respond.
This assumes:
- planning literacy
- time to read technical reports
- comfort with jargon
It is not reasonable to expect:
- someone working full-time
- caring for family
- or unfamiliar with planning language
to digest professional-grade material just to give a meaningful response.
And this isn’t new.
We’ve seen the same thing with:
- the Local Plan
- the budget consultation
- green and open space surveys
Dense documents.
Limited explanation.
Then surprise when engagement is low.
At some point, the problem isn’t the public.
Consultants, cost, and déjà vu
External consultants have been appointed to lead this work.
Residents are entitled to ask:
- how they were procured
- what the contract value is
- what engagement outputs were required
- and how success is measured
This matters because Sandwell has form.
We’ve seen previous consultant-led engagement exercises — including green and open space surveys — commissioned at cost, delivered, and then quietly disappear from active policy use.
Against a backdrop of:
- budget cuts
- service pressures
- and public concern about waste
“Trust us, it’s best practice” is no longer enough.
A wider disconnect
What this Design Code process exposes is something bigger:
A disconnect between:
- council departments
- portfolio holders
- consultants
- and the lived experience of residents
People are told they are being listened to — while being presented with processes that are:
- hard to find
- hard to understand
- and unclear in outcome
That doesn’t build trust.
It drains it.
This could have been a good thing
A borough-wide Design Code could:
- improve housing quality
- protect green space
- make streets safer
- and give planners the confidence to refuse bad development
But only if it is:
- transparent
- representative
- accessible
- and enforceable
Right now, the danger is that we end up with:
a glossy document, full of “shoulds”, light on “musts”,
backed by claims of community support that cannot be clearly evidenced.
Final thought
This is not opposition to design quality.
It is opposition to performative consultation.
If Sandwell wants a Design Code the public will respect, it needs to stop telling people they were involved — and start showing them how.
Because “community-led” isn’t a slogan.
It’s a standard.
#Sandwell
#DesignCode
#CommunityNotConsultationTheatre
#LocalDemocracy
#PlanningTransparency
#FriendsGroups
#PublicConsultation
#SandwellPolitics
No comments:
Post a Comment