Sandwell’s First Test Of Change: New Council, Same Old Machinery?

Sandwell’s First Test Of Change: New Council, Same Old Machinery?

Pre-meeting blog — based on the public documents available as of 5pm today, Tuesday 26 May 2026.

Tonight at 6pm, Sandwell’s new council meets for its Annual Full Council meeting.

This is the first major meeting since Reform took control of Sandwell Council, ending decades of Labour dominance. So let’s be very clear from the start: this is not just a ceremonial bunting-and-chain-wearing evening.

This is the meeting where the new council starts building the machinery of power.

Who leads.
Who chairs.
Who sits on scrutiny.
Who controls the constitution.
Who represents Sandwell on outside bodies.
Who gets responsibility for housing, children’s services, regeneration, waste, public safety, planning, health and finance.

In other words, tonight is where Reform either starts dismantling Labour’s managed-democracy machine — or quietly climbs into the driver’s seat and carries on using it.

I’ll try to post live commentary if anything changes during the meeting. But this article is based on the public agenda papers and supplementary documents available as of 5pm today.

And frankly, there is already plenty to chew on.

The missing papers have finally appeared

The first version of the Annual Council pack was poor.

It told us there would be appointments to Cabinet, committees and outside bodies — but did not actually show many of the names. Very helpful. The democratic equivalent of saying, “Trust us, we’ll fill in the blanks later.”

Now the supplementary pack has arrived. It has grown to 148 pages and finally includes Cabinet portfolios, committee memberships, scrutiny chairs, outside-body nominations and the meeting timetable. The agenda confirms the Annual Council meeting is at 6pm, Tuesday 26 May 2026, at Sandwell Council House.

So now we can see the real power map.

And that map raises serious questions.

Ray Nock: Leader, Regeneration, Growth, Assets, Local Plan, WMCA…

Councillor Ray Nock is listed as Leader of the Council.

The Leader role is already huge. The document says he will oversee the administration’s manifesto commitments, core council strategies, communications, transformation, service improvement, policy, partnerships and holding the Chief Executive to account.

Fair enough. That is what a Leader does.

But then it goes further.

Councillor Nock is also listed as Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Growth. That portfolio includes regeneration, economic growth, inward investment, strategic assets and land, planning policy, transportation, the Local Plan and major road schemes.

That is not a small side-hustle.

That is one of the most powerful portfolios in the council.

So the obvious question is this:

Is too much power being concentrated in one pair of hands?

Because regeneration, planning policy, land, assets, WMCA funding, transport and the Local Plan are exactly the areas where Sandwell needs transparency, not centralisation.

We have already seen what happens when too much is controlled by too few. Labour did it for years. Residents got consultation theatre, regeneration fog, planning frustration and endless corporate waffle.

Reform should be careful not to build the same castle and simply repaint the flag.

The Constitution Committee: this is the biggest red flag

This is the one that really jumps off the page.

The Governance and Constitutional Review Committee is proposed to be chaired by Councillor Ray Nock, with Councillor Gary Dale as Deputy Chair.

Councillor Nock is the Leader.

Councillor Dale is the Statutory Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services.

So the Leader and Deputy Leader are sitting at the top of the committee responsible for reviewing the Constitution.

After everything Sandwell residents have witnessed with public participation being squeezed, meetings being over-managed, time limits being waved around like traffic lights at a children’s disco, and Full Council becoming more procedural than democratic, this is not a good look.

The people who benefit most from executive power should not be chairing the committee that reviews the rules constraining executive power.

That is not change.

That is a conflict of political culture waiting to happen.

If Reform really wants to prove it is different, this committee should be visibly independent from the executive. It should be where public participation is opened up, not where power marks its own homework.

Scrutiny: Reform scrutinising Reform?

The supplement names the main scrutiny chairs.

The Budget and Corporate Scrutiny Management Board is chaired by Councillor Tim Hordley. The Children’s Services and Education Scrutiny Board is chaired by Councillor David Williams. Economy, Skills, Transport and Environment is chaired by Councillor Tim Hordley. Health and Adult Social Care is chaired by Councillor Mark Webb. Safer Neighbourhoods and Active Communities is chaired by Councillor Tuli Zefi.

That appears to put Reform in control of all the main scrutiny chairs.

Now yes, Reform won the election. They have the numbers. Nobody is pretending otherwise.

But scrutiny is not supposed to be a victory lap.

Scrutiny is supposed to challenge the executive. It is supposed to test decisions, expose risk, follow the money, drag problems into daylight and ask the awkward questions Cabinet would rather not hear.

If Reform controls Cabinet and also controls all the chairs scrutinising Cabinet, then residents are entitled to ask:

Is this scrutiny with teeth, or scrutiny with a party badge?

Labour spent years turning scrutiny into a polite ritual. Reform should not copy the template.

A genuine fresh start would involve giving opposition or Independent councillors meaningful scrutiny roles — not token scraps, but proper opportunities to lead reviews on housing, SEND, waste, public participation, regeneration, planning and safeguarding.

The Greens deserve credit on the Independent councillor issue

The council composition is now:

Reform 41, Labour 28, Green 2, Independent 1.

The supplement confirms that the Independent councillor is not part of a political group and therefore is not automatically entitled to committee seats under proportionality rules.

That may be legally correct, but it is still democratically awkward. An Independent councillor represents residents just as much as any party councillor.

To their credit, the Green Group appears to have offered one of its seats to Independent Councillor Richard Jeffcoat on the General Licensing Committee and Budget and Corporate Scrutiny Management Board.

Credit where it is due.

The smaller group made space for the Independent voice. The bigger groups should take note.

Cabinet Petitions Committee: Cabinet still marking its own homework

Here is another inherited Labour-style problem.

The Cabinet Petitions Committee remains made up of Cabinet: chair lead portfolio holder plus eight Cabinet members.

So petitions from residents are still effectively handled by the executive.

That is the same core problem we criticised before.

Petitions should be one of the public’s routes into power. Instead, Sandwell’s model risks making petitions feel like residents pleading with the very people responsible for the services they are complaining about.

Cabinet judging petitions about Cabinet-controlled services is not exactly independent scrutiny.

It is Cabinet marking its own homework — with a slightly cleaner pen.

Reform should review this quickly.

Housing finally gets the attention it deserves — now deliver

Councillor Ken Parsons is listed as Deputy Leader Political and Cabinet Member for Housing.

The portfolio is serious. It includes housing improvement and transformation, compliance and building safety, repairs backlog, capital improvement, customer journey, consumer standards, IT systems, workforce, culture change, climate response and building new council houses.

Good.

Housing needs that prominence.

But this is also where Reform’s excuses will run out fastest.

Residents will not care that Labour left a mess if their repairs still don’t happen, damp and mould still drag on, complaints still go unanswered, and tenants still feel ignored.

Housing is now politically owned.

No hiding. No waffle. No “journey”. No “transformation” fog machine.

Fix the repairs.
Improve communication.
Publish performance.
Show tenants what is changing.

Children, SEND and safeguarding: name CSE properly

Councillor Mona Khurana is Cabinet Member for Children and Families, with responsibility for child protection, SEND, Sandwell Children’s Trust, youth services and youth justice.

That is a crucial portfolio.

But here is the warning: Reform must not repeat Labour’s cowardice on language.

For too long, Sandwell Labour was willing to talk about violence against women and girls, misogyny, allyship and fashionable villains — but somehow repeatedly avoided explicitly naming:

Child Sexual Exploitation.
Grooming gangs.
Organised rape of children.

That silence was disgraceful.

If Reform is serious about safeguarding, then CSE and grooming must be named plainly in training, scrutiny, safeguarding reports and public policy.

Not hidden inside broad phrases.
Not buried under “all forms of abuse”.
Not left to residents to raise from the sidelines.

The girls who were failed deserve honesty, not political choreography.

Environment and Enforcement: one monster portfolio

Councillor Bob Jones takes Environment and Enforcement.

This portfolio covers waste, recycling, fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour, community safety, highways, parks, green spaces, public protection, air quality, road safety, allotments and net zero.

That is not a portfolio. That is a municipal obstacle course.

It includes many of the issues residents raise constantly:

• bins;
• fly-tipping;
• street cleaning;
• dangerous roads;
• potholes;
• parks;
• ASB;
• public protection;
• air quality;
• green spaces;
• waste contracts;
• Serco performance;
• environmental neglect.

This portfolio needs measurable public reporting from day one.

Residents should not have to rely on glossy press releases and “we are working with partners” nonsense. They need ward-level data, response times, complaint trends, enforcement action, fly-tipping hotspots, Serco performance and highways priorities.

Climate Change Working Group: unfinished already?

One of the most embarrassing parts of the supplement is the Climate Change Working Group entry.

It lists a Cabinet Member and eight elected members — but the councillor names appear blank, with repeated “Councillor” placeholders.

Brilliant.

The council keeps telling us about net zero, air quality, climate emergency, flood risk and environmental leadership — but cannot even fill in the names on the Climate Change Working Group in the public supplement.

New era, same proofreading department.

This needs correcting tonight.

Armed Forces Champion: still “to be determined”

Another awkward one.

The supplement lists Heritage Champion: Councillor Cooper.

But Armed Forces Champion is still “to be determined”.

That matters because the March Full Council carried a motion on Sandwell “Going for Gold” in support of the Armed Forces community. That motion called for Gold Award status, an Armed Forces Employment and Engagement Strategy, and proper coordination.

So the council passed the grand motion, but the champion role is not even filled in the supplement.

Very Sandwell.

Warm words first. Details to follow. Maybe. Eventually. After a working group. Possibly.

Outside bodies: where power disappears into partnership land

The outside-body appointments are extensive.

Councillor Nock appears across a significant number of regional and strategic bodies, including the LGA, SIGOMA, Black Country bodies, WMCA Board, WMCA Investment Board, WMCA Growth Company, WMCA Employment Committee, Investment Zone Board, Town Deal boards and more.

Some of that is normal for a council Leader.

But there must be accountability.

Outside bodies are where decisions, influence, funding, partnerships and regional strategy often happen away from ordinary public view. That is why every outside-body representative should produce an annual written report to Full Council.

Meetings attended.
Key decisions.
Funding opportunities.
Risks.
Sandwell impact.
Conflicts.
Actions required.

No more disappearing into “partnership land” and returning with a lanyard and three buzzwords.

Planning: watch this like a hawk

Planning Committee is chaired by Councillor Paul Snape, with Councillor Geoffrey Sutton as Deputy Chair.

Planning will be one of the most sensitive areas of this new council.

Why?

Because planning touches everything:

• Friar Park;
• Local Plan;
• housing targets;
• green space;
• traffic;
• air quality;
• flooding;
• biodiversity;
• Section 106;
• CIL;
• developer obligations;
• enforcement;
• HMOs;
• regeneration;
• public trust.

The constitution still delegates a great deal to officers, including applications not reserved to committee, Section 106 obligations, environmental screening, Local Plan consultation responses, government/planning consultations and informal planning documents.

So new Planning Committee members need to wake up quickly.

They need training, dashboards, ward-level reporting and a very clear understanding of what is delegated and what can be called in.

Otherwise residents will hear the same old phrase:

“Oh, that was delegated.”

The classic Sandwell lullaby.

Still no named Mayor or Deputy Mayor in the papers?

One final point before tonight’s meeting.

From what I can see in the public documents available before the meeting, the agenda lists:

Item 3 — Election of Mayor 2026/2027
Item 4 — Election of Deputy Mayor 2026/2027

But I cannot see named proposed individuals for Mayor or Deputy Mayor in the public pack or supplement.

That is odd.

The papers name the Leader, Cabinet, committees, scrutiny boards and outside-body appointments — but not the person proposed to chair Full Council.

The Mayor matters.

This is the person responsible for chairing the chamber fairly, clearly and competently. After previous concerns about rushed debate, time warnings, procedural confusion and public-facing shambles, this role should not be treated as a surprise reveal.

If the public can be told who is proposed for outside bodies, surely they can be told who is proposed to chair Full Council.

What Reform must prove tonight

Let’s be fair.

Reform has inherited a council with deep problems:

• weak public trust;
• housing pressures;
• SEND risk;
• planning frustration;
• environmental complaints;
• scrutiny fatigue;
• public participation barriers;
• officer-heavy governance;
• and years of Labour complacency.

Nobody sensible expects everything fixed tonight.

But tonight will show tone.

Will Reform challenge the old culture?

Or simply take ownership of it?

Because residents did not vote for Labour’s managed-democracy machine to be repainted.

They voted for change.

That means:

• public participation reform;
• stronger scrutiny;
• opposition voices respected;
• Independent councillors not frozen out;
• petitions handled more fairly;
• CSE and grooming named honestly;
• housing performance published;
• Serco and waste performance exposed;
• planning made transparent;
• constitutional review opened up;
• Cabinet meetings made accessible;
• outside-body roles reported back;
• and fewer decisions hidden behind “delegation”.

Final thought before the meeting

Tonight is not just about who gets what title.

It is about whether Sandwell starts to change the way it governs.

The danger for Reform is not becoming Labour politically.

The danger is becoming Sandwell institutionally.

Same chamber.
Same constitution.
Same officer machine.
Same meeting times.
Same public barriers.
Same cosy committee habits.
Different rosettes.

That is not change.

That is a rebrand.

I’ll be watching tonight’s meeting from 6pm and will try to post commentary if matters change.

But based on the documents available at 5pm, my message is simple:

Good luck Reform — now prove you are not just the new management team for Labour’s old machine.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #Labour #RayNock #LocalGovernment #Governance #Scrutiny #Accountability #PublicParticipation #Planning #Housing #CSE #Democracy #WestMidlands