Three Friar Park Approvals. Three Warning Signs. One Planning Culture Problem.- DC/25/70154, DC/24/69650 and DC/23/68742.

Three Friar Park Approvals. Three Warning Signs. One Planning Culture Problem.

Let’s get one thing straight from the start.

Friar Park Urban Village (FPUV) has not yet had its main planning application submitted.

So this article is not about attacking an application that does not yet formally exist.

It is about something arguably more important:

👉 the pattern already visible in three separate approved applications in the same Friar Park area:

• DC/25/70154
• DC/24/69650
• DC/23/68742

Taken together, these approvals raise serious questions about:

• planning standards
• evidence gaps
• governance
• policy compliance
• transparency
• and whether the council is drifting into habits that bear the hallmarks of maladministration

Not proven maladministration, no.
But enough red flags to justify asking the question loudly.

And repeatedly.

This is not one bad application. It is a pattern.

Any one planning application can be messy.
Any one officer report can be debatable.
Any one set of conditions can be argued over.

But when you start seeing the same defects across multiple applications in the same area, the issue stops being “an error” and starts becoming a culture.

That is where Friar Park now sits.

Across these three applications, the same themes keep appearing:

• incomplete evidence at determination stage
• major issues kicked into planning conditions
• weak or missing cumulative assessment
• strange absence of recorded internal debate
• “NIL” FOI responses that do not sit comfortably with the documents actually disclosed
• and repeated signs that difficult matters are being parked for later rather than resolved before permission is granted

In other words:

approve first, sort it later, and record as little as possible.

DC/25/70154 — approved with gaps still live

This application is one of the clearest examples of the problem.

The council’s own disclosed material shows that noise concerns were still being actively queried before determination.

Calculations were challenged.
Clarification was requested.
Further information was sought.
An extension of time was needed to resolve outstanding issues.

That is not a clean, settled evidence base. That is an application with live technical uncertainty.

The biodiversity position was no better.

The ecology side effectively accepted that proper Biodiversity Net Gain detail was not in place at the point it should have been, and that key matters could simply be dealt with later through standard post-permission conditions.

So let’s be honest about what that means.

It means permission was being advanced while important ecological detail was still incomplete.

And yet when asked through FOI for records about:

• unresolved issues,
• concerns,
• risk,
• or the appropriateness of relying on conditions,

the council’s answer was largely:

NIL.

Apparently nobody was worried.
Nobody debated anything.
Nobody recorded any reservations.

Except the disclosed emails show that they clearly did.

That is not a minor inconsistency.
That is a governance problem.

DC/24/69650 — where the documents start telling a very different story

If 70154 is troubling, 69650 is positively instructive.

Because here the disclosed material begins to show how the sausage is made.

There were active discussions with the developer.
There were highways concerns.
There were layout issues.
There were SuDS constraints.
There were clear tensions between technical acceptability and maximising housing numbers.

In one strand, drainage choices were plainly being influenced by the desire not to lose plots.

In another, highways raised concerns over access standards, layout and future connectivity.

There were even internal comments suggesting that what was being counted toward biodiversity gain looked less like a thoughtful ecological solution and more like a left-over bit of land likely to become scrub and ASB territory.

That is not a model of robust planning.
That is a model of squeezing a scheme through.

And once again, when FOI requests asked for the internal risk thinking, balancing exercises, and recorded reasoning behind accepting these compromises?

The answer came back neat, sanitised and suspiciously empty.

NIL. NIL. NIL.

Only this time, the disclosed documents themselves show that is at best incomplete and at worst deeply misleading.

DC/23/68742 — the incredible vanishing paper trail

Then we come to 68742, the application where the council’s response was so devoid of internal record that it almost made the case on its own.

Planning? Nil.
Public Health? Nil.
Highways? Nil.
Environmental Protection? Nil.
Flood Risk? Nil.
Balancing exercise? Nil.
Why conditions instead of refusal? Nil.

For a development in this location, with this context, those responses are simply not credible.

And yet, in the same breath, the council still pointed to technical assessments and consultation responses that had evidently been received and considered.

So which is it?

Were there no internal records of any kind?

Or were the searches inadequate, the interpretation narrow, or the disclosure incomplete?

Because both positions cannot be true at once.

You cannot claim there was effectively no internal decision trail while also relying on technical consultation responses to justify the decision.

That is the kind of contradiction that should make every councillor, auditor and monitoring officer sit bolt upright.

The real issue: planning by condition, not by evidence

The most consistent theme across all three applications is not contamination alone, or noise alone, or BNG alone.

It is this:

key issues are not being fully resolved before approval.

Instead, there is repeated reliance on conditions to:

• investigate later,
• mitigate later,
• clarify later,
• submit proper detail later,
• and somehow clean up the evidential mess later.

Conditions are not unlawful. Of course they are not.

But they are not supposed to become a substitute for proper front-loaded planning judgment.

A planning authority should be able to explain:

• why the issue was safe to defer,
• why refusal was not justified,
• why the remaining uncertainty was acceptable,
• and how the decision still complied with policy despite those gaps.

That is exactly the kind of reasoning your FOIs have gone looking for.

And again and again, the answer has been a bureaucratic shrug.

No logs.
No drafts.
No concerns.
No debate.
No rationale.

For three separate applications.

At some point the absence of records becomes a record in itself.

Where are the cumulative assessments?

Another huge red flag is the lack of meaningful cumulative thinking.

These applications sit in the same broad Friar Park area.
They are not isolated islands.
They interact with the same strained transport corridors, the same air quality pressures, the same broader growth context, the same school-place problem, and the same nearby communities.

Yet the evidence trail for cumulative assessment appears painfully weak.

That matters because planning is not just about asking:

“Can this one scheme scrape through on paper?”

It is also about asking:

“What happens when these schemes are layered on top of each other in the real world?”

That question seems to have gone missing far too often.

Why this starts to look like maladministration

Let’s use careful language.

I am not saying maladministration has been formally proven.
That is for the appropriate body to determine.

But I am saying this:

These applications display traits consistent with possible maladministration, including:

• inadequate record-keeping
• inconsistent FOI responses
• failure to disclose obvious internal reasoning
• repeated reliance on conditions without visible justification
• fragmented rather than integrated assessment
• weak evidence of cumulative consideration
• and a planning culture that appears more focused on getting to “yes” than on evidencing why “yes” was safe, lawful and rational

That is not a throwaway criticism.

That is a serious governance warning.

And this matters before the FPUV application arrives

This is why these three applications matter so much.

Because the main FPUV application has not yet been submitted.

These applications are, in effect, the warning lights on the dashboard before the main engine failure.

If this is how smaller or linked applications in the same area are being handled now, what confidence should anyone have that the big one will suddenly be treated with immaculate rigour, pristine transparency and saintly caution?

Exactly.

Final word

The lesson from DC/25/70154, DC/24/69650 and DC/23/68742 is not simply that residents disagree with development.

It is that there is now a serious, evidence-backed basis for questioning how Sandwell is making planning decisions in the Friar Park area at all.

Three approvals.
Three sets of red flags.
Three signs of the same deeper problem.

And if nobody addresses that problem before the main FPUV application lands, then whatever comes next will not just be a planning application.

It will be the next chapter in a governance failure that everybody could already see coming.

#FriarPark #Sandwell #Planning #FOI #Governance #DC2570154 #DC2469650 #DC2368742 #ContaminatedLand #BNG #Noise #Highways #Wednesbury #LocalGovernment #Transparency

Friar Park: No Records. No Answers. No Accountability. And 600 Homes Anyway.

Friar Park: No Records. No Answers. No Accountability. And 600 Homes Anyway.

Let’s strip this right back.

Sandwell Council is pushing forward a development of 600+ homes on a former sewage works, next to the M6 motorway, inside a borough-wide Air Quality Management Area, with known risks around:

• contamination
• flooding
• air quality
• infrastructure
• school capacity

Fine. Development happens.

But here’s the problem.

👉 There is no recorded evidence showing how these risks were actually assessed internally.

None.

📂 I asked for the evidence. Here’s what came back:

Through multiple Freedom of Information requests, I asked a very simple thing:

Show me the internal thinking.

Emails. Risk logs. Officer discussions. Draft reports. Concerns raised. Decisions justified.

What did Sandwell Council say?

👉 “NIL”
👉 “No records held”
👉 “Nothing recorded”

Let that sink in.

A multi-million pound development on contaminated land…

…and apparently:

• no internal risk discussions
• no documented concerns
• no debate
• no justification for decisions

Either:

1. The records exist and aren’t being disclosed
or
2. The decisions were made without being properly recorded

Pick your poison — neither is acceptable.

🧱 Build first. Explain later.

The pattern is now obvious.

Instead of resolving risks upfront, the approach is:

👉 “Grant permission — deal with it later through conditions.”

But here’s the catch:

There is no recorded explanation for why that approach was considered acceptable.

No paper trail. No rationale. No accountability.

Just trust us.

🌫 Air quality? Apparently not discussed.

This site sits next to one of the busiest motorway corridors in the country.

Sandwell is already an Air Quality Management Area.

So naturally, you’d expect:

• internal discussions
• health impact considerations
• cumulative exposure analysis

Nope.

👉 FOI response: nothing held

Nothing.

☣️ Contamination and flood risk? Also “nothing”.

We’re talking about a former sewage works in a flood catchment.

So where are the internal discussions about:

• contaminant movement
• groundwater risk
• flood mobilisation
• long-term monitoring

Again:

👉 “NIL”

🚗 Transport, schools, SEND?

Same story.

Residents can already see:

• A4031 congestion
• Tame Bridge station overflowing
• school places stretched
• SEND provision already under pressure

So where is the modelling?

Where is the joined-up thinking?

Where is the cumulative impact assessment?

👉 Nowhere.

🧾 Consultation: box ticked, move on

Let’s talk about consultation.

Residents were consulted. Scrutiny raised concerns. Cabinet discussed it.

But here’s the key question:

👉 What actually changed as a result?

There is:

• no documented feedback loop
• no recorded influence
• no evidence decisions were altered

That’s not consultation.

That’s going through the motions.

🧵 Engagement: delay, deflect, disappear

When residents tried to engage directly?

• 6-week silence from officers
• no answers to detailed questions
• last-minute meeting offers
• then… silence again

Meanwhile, MPs?

• one response repeating the council line
• others not responding at all

👉 Everyone points somewhere else
👉 No one owns the answer

🏛 And the regulators?

Environment Agency?

👉 Refused to provide information — “manifestly unreasonable”

WMCA?

👉 Refused disclosure — no meaningful breakdown

Sandwell?

👉 “Nothing recorded”

🔁 Spot the pattern yet?

This is how it works:

1. Fragment the system
2. Limit what’s recorded
3. Delay what’s disclosed
4. Push everything into “conditions”
5. Keep moving forward

⚠️ And here’s the real risk

This isn’t just about Friar Park.

This is about a system where:

• decisions are made
• risks are known
• but no one formally records, owns or explains them

🧠 Final thought

If this development is safe, sustainable, and properly planned…

👉 Where is the evidence?

Because right now, the official position appears to be:

“Trust us — we’ve thought about it… we just didn’t write it down.”

🔥 Final line

A major housing scheme. On contaminated land. In an AQMA. With no recorded internal risk analysis, no cumulative assessment, and no meaningful engagement.

That’s not planning.

👉 That’s systemic failure.

#Sandwell #FriarPark #PlanningScandal #LocalGovernment #Accountability #FOI #Transparency #HousingCrisis #EnvironmentalRisk #AirQuality #GovernanceFailure #Wednesbury #BlackCountry

The Definition We Didn’t Need: Labour’s Anti-Muslim Hostility Policy and the Free Speech Question

In March 2026 the Labour Government announced that it would adopt a non-statutory definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” as part of its wider strategy on extremism, cohesion and hate crime.

Ministers insist the definition is not a new law and that it does not criminalise criticism of Islam or religion. Instead, they say it is guidance intended to help institutions recognise hostility directed at Muslims.

On paper, the objective sounds straightforward: protecting people from hatred and discrimination.

But the deeper question remains.

Why introduce a new definition at all when the United Kingdom already has extensive laws that cover these matters?

Because once governments begin defining ideological boundaries around religious criticism, the implications extend far beyond guidance documents.

Britain Already Has Laws Against Religious Hatred

The starting point in this debate should be the existing legal framework.

The UK already has a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect individuals from harassment, discrimination and violence because of their religion.

Public Order Act 1986 (as amended)

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act to make it a criminal offence to use threatening words, behaviour or material intended to stir up religious hatred.

This protection applies to all religions, including Islam.

Importantly, Parliament inserted an explicit safeguard for free speech.

Section 29J states clearly that the legislation does not prohibit criticism, discussion or expressions of dislike of religions or religious practices.

That clause was deliberately included to prevent the law from becoming a modern form of blasphemy restriction.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 / Criminal Justice Act 2003

UK law already recognises religiously aggravated offences.

If someone commits crimes such as:

• assault
• harassment
• criminal damage
• public order offences

and does so because of religious hostility, the courts can impose enhanced sentences.

Again, this applies equally to Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and others.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour are already criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act.

Religious motivation can also be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Equality Act 2010

Religion or belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

That means discrimination against Muslims in areas such as:

• employment
• education
• housing
• public services

is already unlawful.

So What Exactly Is Labour Creating?

This is the crucial point.

The new definition is not legislation.

It is a policy tool intended to influence how institutions interpret and respond to hostility directed at Muslims.

That means it will affect:

• police guidance
• university policies
• local authority procedures
• workplace frameworks
• regulatory bodies

In other words, its real impact will be institutional rather than legal.

And that is precisely why critics are concerned.

The Risk of Institutional Over-Correction

The wording of the definition itself may appear limited.

But experience shows that once government guidance enters institutional systems, organisations often respond with extreme caution rather than careful balance.

Universities, councils, regulators and police forces increasingly operate within a culture of risk management and reputational sensitivity.

In that environment, vague or politically sensitive definitions can lead to:

• self-censorship
• avoidance of controversial topics
• reluctance to discuss difficult issues openly

This is not theoretical.

Multiple inquiries into past safeguarding failures — including the Jay Report, Casey Inspection and Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse — documented situations where institutions hesitated to act because they feared causing offence or damaging community relations.

The result was not social harmony.

It was delay.

And delay allowed harm to continue.

The Free Speech Warning

The government’s own Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has already warned that poorly defined language around religious hostility could create uncertainty about legitimate discussion of extremist ideology.

That distinction is vital.

There is a fundamental difference between:

• hostility toward individuals because of their religion, and
• criticism of religious ideas, political movements or extremist interpretations.

The first is rightly condemned.

The second is part of normal democratic debate.

If institutions begin to blur that boundary, the consequences will not be limited to academic discussions.

They will affect counter-extremism policy, safeguarding investigations and public debate.

The Question of Equal Treatment

Another issue rarely addressed in the political debate is consistency.

Britain is a multi-faith society.

Religious hostility affects many communities, including Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and others.

Yet the government has chosen to create a specific national definition addressing hostility toward one religion alone.

That inevitably raises a question:

If the objective is to combat hatred based on religion, why not adopt a framework that applies equally to all faith communities?

Equality under the law is not simply a legal principle.

It is also a principle of public trust.

The Real Test Will Be Implementation

Ultimately, the impact of this policy will not depend on the wording of the definition.

It will depend on how public institutions interpret and apply it.

If the guidance is used narrowly — to identify and respond to genuine harassment or hatred directed at Muslims — then it will simply reinforce protections that already exist in law.

But if it encourages institutions to avoid difficult discussions about religion, extremism or safeguarding, then it risks repeating the very culture of hesitation that past inquiries have warned against.

A Simple Question

The UK already has strong laws protecting people from religious hatred.

So the question that ministers must answer is straightforward.

If the law already protects individuals from harassment and discrimination because of their religion, what problem is this new definition actually solving?

Until that question is answered clearly, the debate about Labour’s new policy will continue.

And rightly so! 

#RuleOfLaw #FreeSpeech #UKPolitics #CounterExtremism #Safeguarding #ReligiousFreedom #GovernmentPolicy #Accountability

Trial by Jury? Not if Sandwell’s MPs Have Anything to Do With It

Trial by Jury? Not if Sandwell’s MPs Have Anything to Do With It

Four Labour MPs, one ancient right, and a vote in Westminster yesterday that quietly chips away at a cornerstone of British justice.

Yesterday in Westminster… while most people were getting on with their lives

Yesterday in the House of Commons, while most of the country was busy working, paying bills, or wondering why the bins still haven’t been collected, MPs quietly voted on the controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill.

And guess what?

All four of Sandwell’s Labour MPs lined up obediently behind the government.

• Antonia Bance — Tipton & Wednesbury
• Sarah Coombes — West Bromwich
• Gurinder Singh Josan — Smethwick
• Alex Ballinger — Halesowen

Every single one of them voted in favour of the legislation progressing.

Four MPs.
Four votes.
Zero dissent.

Democracy, apparently, works best when everyone reads from the same script.

So what exactly did they vote for?

Technically speaking, yesterday’s vote was the Second Reading of the bill.

Which in parliamentary speak means:

“We broadly agree with this legislation and want to move it forward.”

Among the most controversial provisions is a proposal that would restrict the ability of defendants to choose a jury trial in certain criminal cases.

In plain English?

Some offences that currently allow you to be judged by twelve ordinary citizens could instead be decided by a judge alone or magistrates.

No jury.

No peers.

Just the system deciding.

A tiny tweak… or the slow erosion of a historic right?

Supporters of the bill insist nothing dramatic is happening.

After all:

• Juries will still exist.
• Serious crimes will still have juries.

But critics point out something important.

Rights are rarely abolished in one dramatic moment.

They are trimmed, adjusted, modernised, streamlined and “reformed” until eventually the original protection looks very different.

Death by a thousand parliamentary amendments.

Why jury trials matter

Trial by jury isn’t some quaint tradition we keep around for historical tourism.

It exists for a reason.

For centuries it has been one of the few moments when ordinary citizens can stand between the state and an accused person.

Its roots stretch back to Magna Carta (1215) — that irritating medieval document that insisted the Crown couldn’t just do whatever it fancied.

It established the principle that people should be judged by their equals, not simply by the authorities.

In other words:

Citizens judging citizens.

Not the state judging you.

And this isn’t ancient history

One of the most famous legal cases in British history — Bushell’s Case (1670) — confirmed that juries are independent.

In that case, jurors refused to convict a religious dissenter despite pressure from the judge.

The court ruled that juries cannot be punished for their verdict.

That decision helped cement the idea that juries act as a constitutional safeguard against government overreach.

So why change the system?

The government says the answer is simple:

The courts are clogged.

The Crown Court backlog is enormous.

Victims are waiting years for trials.

Cases collapse.

Justice delayed becomes justice denied.

And there is truth in that.

But critics say the real reason for the crisis is not juries.

It is years of court closures, underfunding and cuts to legal aid.

In other words:

The system was starved of resources… and now the public’s rights are being trimmed to make it work again.

Civil liberties groups are sounding the alarm

A number of organisations have already raised concerns.

• Liberty warns the proposals weaken an essential protection against state power.

• Law Society of England and Wales has cautioned that limiting jury trials risks damaging confidence in the justice system.

• Bar Council says juries are a crucial safeguard against wrongful convictions.

• Free Speech Union argues that juries sometimes act as the “community conscience”, especially in politically sensitive cases.

In other words:

The people who actually work inside the justice system are rather uneasy about all this.

But Sandwell’s MPs had no such hesitation

Not a peep.

Not a murmur.

Not a raised eyebrow.

The four MPs representing one of the most deprived areas in the country simply marched through the voting lobby.

As instructed.

What happens next

Before anyone starts sharpening pitchforks, the bill is not law yet.

It still has several stages to go:

1. Committee Stage
   MPs will go through the bill line by line and propose amendments.

2. Report Stage
   The full Commons debates the revised text.

3. Third Reading
   Final vote in the Commons.

4. House of Lords scrutiny
   The Lords — full of former judges and legal heavyweights — will likely give this legislation a much tougher examination.

If the Lords amend the bill, it comes back to the Commons in what Westminster calls “ping-pong.”

Only once both Houses agree does it become law.

So why does this matter to Sandwell?

Because rights rarely disappear in dramatic moments.

They fade.

Quietly.

Procedurally.

Under the comforting language of efficiency and modernisation.

And yesterday, the four MPs elected to represent Sandwell voted to move legislation forward that critics say weakens one of the oldest protections in British justice.

Maybe the reforms will improve the courts.

Maybe they will reduce delays.

But one thing is certain:

When a constitutional safeguard that has existed for centuries begins to shrink — even slightly — citizens should pay attention.

Because once rights disappear, they rarely come back.

#TrialByJury #RightToJuryTrial #CivilLiberties #RuleOfLaw #MagnaCarta #BritishJustice #JusticeSystem #ProtectOurRights #KnowHowTheyVoted #Sandwell #WestBromwich #Smethwick #Tipton #Wednesbury #Halesowen #BlackCountry #UKPolitics #Parliament #LegalReform

Sandwell: Two Years After Government Intervention… Governance Is RED Again

Sandwell: Two Years After Government Intervention… Governance Is RED Again

If you remember, Sandwell Council spent two years under Government intervention after a damning governance review concluded the authority had failed its Best Value duty.

Commissioners were sent in.

Taxpayers paid the bill.

Politicians promised reform.

The council told everyone the corner had been turned.

Well… fast forward to 2026, and buried inside the latest Audit & Risk Assurance Committee papers is a rather inconvenient little detail:

Sandwell’s governance has been rated RED by the external auditor.

Yes — RED.

Not green.
Not amber.
Not “improving.”

Red.

Which, for those unfamiliar with council-speak, is auditor shorthand for:

“Houston… we have a governance problem.”

And that’s not coming from bloggers, campaigners or opposition councillors.

That’s coming from the council’s own external auditors.

A Quick Refresher: Why Commissioners Were Sent In

Let’s rewind.

Back in 2022, the Government intervened in Sandwell because of serious failures in:

• governance and decision-making
• scrutiny and accountability
• member-officer relationships
• organisational culture

In short: the council’s internal systems for running itself properly had broken down.

Commissioners were installed to fix the mess.

By March 2024, ministers declared the council had improved enough to leave intervention.

The message from the council leadership was clear:

“We’ve learned our lessons.”

So Why Is Governance Now Rated RED?

According to the external auditors reviewing Sandwell’s finances and governance arrangements, several significant weaknesses remain.

Among the concerns raised:

Accounts Governance Problems

Auditors highlighted weaknesses in the council’s ability to produce its annual financial statements on time.

For a £300-plus million public authority, that’s not a minor administrative issue.

It’s a basic governance function.

Internal Audit Recommendations Not Being Implemented

Auditors also warned that the council must strengthen oversight of internal audit actions.

Translation:

When auditors flag risks, those fixes are not always happening quickly enough.

That’s a classic warning sign in organisations where governance discipline is slipping.

Oracle Finance System Issues

The council’s Oracle Fusion financial system — the software responsible for managing finances — still has unresolved problems.

Auditors say Sandwell must:

• resolve outstanding system issues
• optimise the system
• conduct a post-implementation review.

ERP system failures can cause chaos in:

• financial monitoring
• procurement controls
• reporting accuracy.

Hardly reassuring.

Oversight of the Children’s Trust

Auditors also warned the council needs a more collaborative and effective approach to overseeing the Children’s Trust.

Given the national history of councils getting into serious trouble over children’s services governance, that recommendation should raise eyebrows.

Dedicated Schools Grant Pressures

The council is also under pressure from the Dedicated Schools Grant, particularly relating to SEND funding.

This is a growing financial crisis across local government.

But councils with weak governance are far more vulnerable when those financial pressures bite.

The Bottom Line

Let’s not dance around it.

Two years after government commissioners packed up their bags and left Sandwell Town Hall…

The council’s governance is still rated RED.

The same governance systems that triggered intervention are still being flagged as weak by external auditors.

That should concern every taxpayer in the borough.

Meanwhile… Complaints Are Climbing

Recent customer feedback reports reveal:

• Stage 2 complaints up 75%
• Housing complaints skyrocketing
• Housing response performance at just 44% compliance

And when complaints reach the Housing Ombudsman, the council frequently loses.

None of this screams “model council.”

The Election Timing Is… Convenient

The next meeting of the Audit & Risk Assurance Committee takes place on:

Thursday 2 April 2026 – 6:00pm

This will be the last meeting of the committee before the local elections.

So the final governance meeting before voters go to the polls will be discussing…

a RED governance rating.

You couldn’t make it up.

The Question Voters Should Be Asking

When ministers ended intervention in 2024, the promise was that Sandwell had turned a corner.

But two years later, auditors are still raising red flags.

So here’s the question:

If governance has truly improved…

Why is it still RED?

And perhaps more importantly:

If commissioners were sent in to fix governance failures…

why are those same warnings appearing again today?

One Last Thought

Local government only works when the public trusts the people running it.

Trust depends on transparency.

Transparency depends on strong governance.

And right now, according to the council’s own auditors…

Sandwell’s governance is RED.

Voters may wish to bear that in mind when they next head to the ballot box.

Next meeting:
Audit & Risk Assurance Committee
Thursday 2 April 2026 – 6:00pm
Sandwell Council

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellPolitics #LocalGovernment #CouncilWatch #AuditCommittee #Governance #Accountability #FollowThePower #LocalElections #Transparency #CouncilFail