Armed Forces Day In Sandwell: Lovely Photos, Warm Words — Now Where’s The Follow Up?

 

Armed Forces Day In Sandwell: Lovely Photos, Warm Words — Now Where’s The Follow Up?

There has been plenty of chat in Sandwell over the weekend about Armed Forces Day.

Lots of photos. Lots of councillors pictured. Lots of comments. Lots of “proud to attend”, “honoured to support”, “we remember”, “we value”, “we stand with” and all the usual polished phrases that get trotted out when there is a flag, a camera and a convenient opportunity to look statesmanlike for Facebook.

And to be clear — Armed Forces Day matters.

It is right that serving personnel, vterans, reservists, cadets, families and the wider armed forces community are recognised. It is right that people turn up. It is right that Sandwell marks the day properly.

But now comes the important bit.

The follow up.

Because support for the armed forces community cannot just be a weekend photo opportunity with a brass band and a buffet of buzzwords.

It cannot be a councillor selfie in the sunshine, followed by silence until the next civic event rolls around.

It cannot be haphazard meetings, mealy-mouthed statements, and management-speak so thick you need a bayonet to cut through it.

Sandwell Council has an Armed Forces Covenant. This is not new. It was adopted years ago. It is supposed to mean something. It is supposed to ensure that members of the armed forces community are not disadvantaged when accessing services, and that special consideration is given where appropriate, especially for the injured and bereaved.

Fine words.

But Sandwell has never been short of fine words. We have had pledges, charters, visions, strategies, boards, frameworks, roadmaps, action plans and enough “partnership working” to sink a small frigate.

The question is simple:

What has actually been done?

Not what was said.

Not what was posed for.

Not what was placed on a webpage and left to gather digital dust.

What has been delivered?

Sandwell’s own Armed Forces Covenant talks about a Partnership Board, chaired by the Mayor, meeting every three months. It talks about an action plan. It talks about making sure the aims of the Covenant are being followed.

So where are the minutes?

Where are the agendas?

Where are the action logs?

Where are the reports?

Where are the outcomes?

Where are the Key Performance Indicators?

Where is the evidence that this is more than a civic badge pinned to the Council’s lapel once a year?

Because if meetings have been held, the public should be able to see what was discussed, who attended, what decisions were made, what actions were agreed, and what actually changed as a result.

If the meetings have not been held, then the Council needs to say so.

If the action plan exists, publish it.

If it does not exist, explain why.

If there are KPIs, show them.

If there are no KPIs, then how exactly is anyone measuring effectiveness?

“Engagement” is not a result.

“Raising awareness” is not a result.

“Continuing to work with partners” is not a result.

“Valuing our veterans” is not a measurable outcome unless it is backed by housing support, employment pathways, welfare advice, health referrals, school support, proper signposting and real casework that makes a difference to real people.

In March 2026, Sandwell Council passed a motion called “Going for Gold: Sandwell’s Commitment to the Armed Forces Community.”

That motion called for Sandwell to work towards Gold Award status under the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme. It called for employment policies to be reviewed. It referred to guaranteed interviews for suitably qualified veterans. It mentioned support for reservists, military spouses and partners. It called for a clear Armed Forces Employment and Engagement Strategy. It called for a dedicated Armed Forces Covenant Partnership Officer. It also called for an update report to Cabinet and Full Council within six months, and for scrutiny oversight.

Good.

Now deliver it.

No waffle. No fog machine. No twelve-page report written in officer-speak that says everything and nothing at the same time.

Sandwell’s new controlling Reform group now has a chance to show whether this was just another Council chamber speech, or whether they are serious about follow-through.

Many councillors have been happy to be pictured this weekend. Many have made public comments about Armed Forces Day. Good. Now back it up.

Ask the questions.

Demand the papers.

Publish the evidence.

Scrutinise the Covenant.

Find out what has been done since adoption.

Find out whether the Partnership Board has met every three months as stated.

Find out who attended.

Find out what decisions were made.

Find out what actions were completed.

Find out what outcomes were achieved.

Find out whether veterans and armed forces families in Sandwell actually know what support is available.

Find out whether frontline housing, welfare, education, employment and customer service staff understand the Covenant.

Find out how many people have been helped.

Find out how many were missed.

Find out what failed.

Find out what needs fixing.

And most importantly, make it public.

Because the armed forces community does not need empty civic theatre. It needs proper support, proper access, proper recognition and proper accountability.

A parade is welcome.

A ceremony is welcome.

Respect is welcome.

But respect does not end when the flags are packed away.

If Sandwell Council, senior officers, elected councillors and the controlling Reform group mean what they said this weekend, then the next step is obvious.

Bring forward the full Armed Forces Covenant review.

Publish the Partnership Board records.

Publish the action plan.

Publish the KPIs.

Publish the progress report.

Name the responsible councillor.

Name the responsible officer.

Set out the Gold Award roadmap.

And let scrutiny do its job.

Because warm words are easy.

Photos are easy.

Turning up for Armed Forces Day is easy.

The harder bit is making sure veterans, serving personnel, reservists, cadets, families, widows, widowers and those injured through service are not left fighting through council bureaucracy when the cameras have gone home.

That is where the real commitment is tested.

And Sandwell now needs to prove it.

Not next year.

Not at the next photo call.

Now.

#ArmedForcesDay #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ArmedForcesCovenant #Veterans #Reservists #MilitaryFamilies #SandwellPolitics #LocalGovernment #CouncilScrutiny #Accountability #ReformSandwell #Oldbury #WestBromwich #Wednesbury #Tipton #Smethwick #RowleyRegis #SandwellBlog

Sandwell's Christmas Lights Mystery: No Records, No Searches, No Change... Except There Was

You have to admire Sandwell Council.

Not because they've mastered transparency.

Not because they've set a new gold standard in community engagement.

But because they've somehow managed to pull off what appears to be the local government equivalent of a magic trick.

"There was no change."

"No records exist."

"We didn't search because there was nothing to search for."

And then, a few weeks later...

Abracadabra!

Out come the emails.

Out come the budgets.

Out come the sponsorship records.

Out come the planning documents.

Out come the event funding forms.

Out come the debrief meetings.

Out come the officer job descriptions.

You almost expect Paul Daniels to appear from behind the Christmas tree.

The Great Christmas Lights Non-Change

This all started with a simple question.

Residents had noticed that Christmas Lights Switch-On events across Sandwell seemed different.

Some long-established community involvement appeared to have disappeared.

Some towns seemed to be council-led.

Others weren't.

Some had sponsorship.

Some had Ward Member Budgets.

Some appeared to have different rules entirely.

Naturally, the question was asked:

Who decided this?

A perfectly reasonable question.

The answer?

Apparently nobody.

Because according to Sandwell Council there was:

"No change in the delivery model."

And because there was no change...

"No information is held."

And because no information was held...

"No searches were undertaken."

I wish I'd known this approach existed years ago.

Next time somebody asks whether I've cleaned the caravan:

"Sorry, no searches were undertaken because no clean surfaces would exist."

Then The Wheels Started Falling Off

Unfortunately for this carefully constructed position, another FOI response landed.

And another.

And another.

Suddenly there were records everywhere.

Not just a few records.

Loads of them.

Documents discussing:

• Christmas planning;

• Event funding;

• Sponsorship;

• Officer responsibilities;

• Town-by-town arrangements;

• Debrief meetings;

• Future improvements;

• Event delivery.

Which rather undermines the earlier argument that nothing existed.

It's difficult to maintain that a cupboard is empty when paperwork keeps falling out every time somebody opens the door.

The Curious Case of Tipton

One of the most interesting disclosures concerns Tipton.

Publicly, many people believed that long-standing community involvement had been reduced or removed.

The Council's position was that there was no change in 2025 because the Council had already been delivering the event since 2024.

Which is interesting.

Because the original FOI about changes was met with:

"No change."

What they actually meant appears to be:

"The change happened earlier."

Those are not quite the same thing.

It's a bit like being caught standing in the rain and claiming:

"I didn't get wet today."

No. You got wet yesterday.

Different Towns, Different Rules

The documents reveal something else.

Sandwell didn't have one model.

It had several.

Some events were:

• Council organised.

• Council supported.

• Council funded.

• Community organised.

• A mixture of all the above.

Now there may be perfectly sensible reasons for that.

But if there are, nobody has explained them.

Why does one town get one arrangement and another town get something completely different?

What criteria were used?

Who decided?

Where is the policy?

The public shouldn't have to play Christmas Lights Cluedo every year.

Community Groups: Partners Or Passengers?

This is where the real concern lies.

The issue isn't actually Christmas lights.

The issue is community ownership.

For decades, community organisations, traders, churches, volunteers and local residents helped make these events successful.

They brought:

• volunteers;

• local knowledge;

• fundraising;

• sponsorship;

• community spirit.

Yet many now feel that decisions are increasingly made behind closed doors, with communities informed after the fact rather than involved from the start.

Whether that perception is entirely fair isn't really the point.

The perception exists.

And in local government, perception becomes reality remarkably quickly.

Follow The Money

The FOIs also revealed a fascinating patchwork of funding.

Events budgets.

Ward Member Budgets.

Sponsorship.

Donations.

In-kind support.

Officer time.

Road closures.

Charity fundraising.

Cash collections.

Nothing particularly unusual in any of that.

What is unusual is how difficult it has been to obtain a clear picture of the whole thing.

Public events funded with public resources should be accompanied by public transparency.

That shouldn't be controversial.

It should be standard.

The Incredible Redacting Machine

A special mention must go to whoever was operating the black marker pen.

Entire sections disappeared beneath thick black rectangles.

Performers.

Entertainers.

Suppliers.

Sponsors.

Donors.

Event partners.

At one point I was half expecting Father Christmas himself to be redacted under Section 40 because disclosure might reveal sensitive information about reindeer movements.

Obviously personal information should be protected where appropriate.

Nobody disputes that.

But when commercial organisations are providing sponsorship, services or support to publicly funded events, transparency ought to be the default position.

Otherwise the paperwork starts to resemble a Cold War intelligence file.

The Bigger Issue

This isn't really about Christmas lights.

It's about governance.

It's about transparency.

It's about trust.

It's about whether community organisations feel valued or tolerated.

It's about whether decisions are clearly documented and explained.

And it's about whether residents can obtain straightforward answers to straightforward questions.

Because when a council says:

"No searches were undertaken because no records would exist"

and then subsequently discloses boxes full of records...

people start asking questions.

Quite rightly.

What Happens Next?

As far as I'm concerned, the investigation phase is largely complete.

Over many months a substantial amount of information has been obtained through Freedom of Information requests, internal reviews and publicly disclosed documents.

The evidence now exists.

The questions have been identified.

The contradictions have been exposed.

The concerns have been documented.

At this point I have decided not to continue an endless cycle of correspondence with officers.

Instead, the information has been passed to Sandwell's new political leadership.

Reform now controls Sandwell Council.

They did not create these arrangements.

However, they now have responsibility for deciding whether they are satisfied with them.

The questions are straightforward:

• Were community groups treated fairly?

• Were long-standing volunteers properly respected?

• Were towns treated consistently?

• Were sponsorship arrangements transparent?

• Were decisions properly documented?

• Were residents adequately consulted?

The evidence is now available.

The responsibility to act rests elsewhere.

A Chance To Reset

Residents do not want Christmas Lights Switch-On events to become political battlegrounds.

They want:

• transparency;

• fairness;

• accountability;

• community involvement;

• and common sense.

Many community groups have spent years helping make these events successful.

They should not feel excluded.

They should not feel ignored.

And they certainly should not feel that involvement depends upon who they know, who is in charge, or which delivery model happens to be fashionable this year.

The new administration has an opportunity to draw a line under the confusion and create a clear borough-wide framework that treats every town, every volunteer and every community group fairly.

Final Thought

Christmas lights are supposed to bring people together.

The irony is that Sandwell's Christmas Lights programme has managed to illuminate something entirely different.

Not the town centres.

The governance.

And once the lights are switched on, it's very difficult to pretend nobody can see.

Link to FOI disclosures and public documents:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/christmas_lights_switch_on_event

#Sandwell #ChristmasLights #FOI #Transparency #Governance #CommunityEngagement #LocalGovernment #ReformUK #Tipton #Wednesbury #Oldbury #Smethwick #Blackheath #WestBromwich #FollowTheMoney #CouncilWatch #Democracy #PublicAccountability

Sandwell’s Local Plan: Homes, Jobs, Wages, Green Space — And A Warning To Reform

Sandwell’s Local Plan: Homes, Jobs, Wages, Green Space — And A Warning To Reform

There is a dangerous little trick in local politics.

Take something complicated. Wrap it in officer language. Call it a “Local Plan”. Add a few glossy maps, some consultation boards, a couple of buzzwords about growth, sustainability and opportunity — and hope the public glaze over before they realise what is actually being decided.

Because make no mistake, Sandwell’s Local Plan is not just a planning document.

It is a map of who gets listened to.
Who gets built over.
Who gets the jobs.
Who gets the traffic.
Who gets the low wages.
Who gets the warehouses.
Who loses the green space.
And who is expected to shut up and be grateful afterwards.

Sandwell Council says the Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on 11 December 2024, with an independent examination now under way, and the council’s own timetable points towards adoption in summer 2026. The Main Modifications consultation has already been and gone, running from 16 February to 30 March 2026. So this is not some distant academic exercise. This is live. This is now. This is the rulebook that developers, officers, inspectors and planning committees will be reaching for when the bulldozers start sniffing around.

And here is the blunt bit.

Sandwell needs homes. Of course it does.

But Sandwell also needs proper jobs. Better wages. Protected employment land. Apprenticeships. Skills. Transport. Schools. GPs. Drainage. Safe roads. Parks. Wildlife corridors. Green space. Brownfield regeneration. Empty homes brought back into use. Contaminated land cleaned up.

What Sandwell does not need is another round of “regeneration” where developers make the profit, residents get the traffic, green space disappears, employment land gets quietly sacrificed, and the council puts out a press release about “unlocking growth”.

We have heard that one before.

Sandwell Is Not A Blank Sheet For Developers

Sandwell is not some wealthy leafy borough moaning because someone wants to build a few houses near a nice view.

Sandwell is one of the most deprived places in the country. Sandwell Trends records the borough as the 19th most deprived local authority out of 296 on the 2025 deprivation score, and says large areas of Smethwick, Tipton, Wednesbury and West Bromwich are heavily deprived.

That matters.

Because in a borough like Sandwell, planning is not just about bricks. It is about poverty. Health. Opportunity. Mobility. Access. Wages. Life chances.

The ONS local labour data shows Sandwell’s employment rate at 69.8% for people aged 16 to 64, lower than the West Midlands rate of 75.2%. Sandwell’s unemployment rate was 6.0%, higher than the West Midlands rate of 4.4%, and economic inactivity was 25.7%, higher than both the West Midlands and Great Britain rate of 21.2%.

So when someone waves around a shiny Local Plan and says “new homes” and “new jobs”, the proper Sandwell answer should be:

What homes?
Where?
For whom?
At what price?
What jobs?
What wages?
What skills?
What transport?
What infrastructure?
And who pays when it all goes wrong?

Because “jobs” can mean skilled manufacturing, apprenticeships, engineering, green industry, construction, retrofit, repair, local SMEs and proper wage progression.

Or it can mean low-wage sheds, zero-hours work, agency labour, fast food strips, car washes, storage units and another dead-edge industrial estate that looks like it was designed by someone who hates human beings.

Let us not pretend they are the same.

Employment Land: The Bit They Hope You Don’t Notice

Everyone shouts about housing numbers. Fewer people notice the employment land.

That is a mistake.

Once employment land is gone, it is usually gone for good. A workshop becomes flats. A small industrial estate becomes “residential-led regeneration”. A site that could have supported apprenticeships, trades, manufacturing or local businesses becomes another box-ticking development with a token café and three hanging baskets.

Then ten years later, councillors look puzzled and ask why local people have to travel further for poorer jobs.

Well, perhaps because the land for proper work was sold, rezoned, neglected, or quietly handed over to the housing machine.

Sandwell must not let that happen.

The test should be simple:

Before any employment land is released for housing, Sandwell Council must prove it is genuinely surplus to future economic need.

Not inconvenient.
Not underused because the council failed to invest.
Not unattractive because access, security, drainage, power or broadband were neglected.
Not “better as housing” because the developer’s spreadsheet prefers it.

Genuinely surplus.

And if it is not genuinely surplus, protect it, improve it, and use it to build the Sandwell economy properly.

Green Space Is Not Spare Land

The same applies to green space.

Sandwell’s parks, nature reserves, informal greens, wildlife corridors, former playing fields, canal edges and open spaces are not spare bits left over for the planning department to colour in.

They are public health infrastructure.
They are flood buffers.
They are children’s breathing space.
They are wildlife routes.
They are community assets.
They are mental health support without a waiting list.

The Community Planning Alliance councillor briefing warns against uncontrolled greenfield development, saying it can mean loss of farmland, habitats and valued green spaces, car-dependent sprawl, infrastructure pressure, weak affordable housing delivery and a democratic deficit.

That warning fits Sandwell like a glove.

We do not need lazy planning dressed up as necessity.

We need:

Brownfield first.
Empty homes first.
Vacant buildings first.
Town centres first.
Contaminated land cleaned up first.
Infrastructure first.
Green space last.

Not as a slogan. As a hard rule.

Infrastructure: No More “It’ll Come Later”

Residents know this game.

The developer promises the earth. Roads, schools, drainage, doctors, open space, cycle routes, affordable homes, jobs, buses, unicorns and a brass band.

Then the application gets approved.

Then comes “viability”.
Then comes “phasing”.
Then comes “subject to funding”.
Then comes “market conditions”.
Then comes “unforeseen circumstances”.
Then comes the traffic.
Then comes the school pressure.
Then comes the GP shortage.
Then comes the flooding.
Then comes the council telling residents it is all very complicated.

No.

Major developments should come with hard, enforceable infrastructure conditions.

The CPA briefing points to Grampian conditions — planning conditions that can stop development starting, or stop later phases or occupation, until specific infrastructure is delivered. It says these can be used for roads, schools, GP surgeries, water supply and sewage capacity.

Sandwell should be using that logic ruthlessly.

No infrastructure, no occupation.
No school capacity, no phase two.
No drainage proof, no diggers.
No GP capacity, no hand-waving.
No highways solution, no consent.

That is not anti-growth.

That is pro-resident.

And Now A Warning To Reform

Reform now controls Sandwell Council.

That means the easy bit is over.

Opposition is easy.
Facebook posts are easy.
Campaign leaflets are easy.
Blaming Labour is easy — and after decades of Labour control, there is plenty to blame.

But control is different.

Now Reform will be judged on what it does, not just what it says.

And on the Local Plan, planning, green space, jobs, wages and regeneration, the judgement will come quickly.

If Reform simply waves through the same officer assumptions, the same tired consultation habits, the same developer-friendly language, the same weak transparency, and the same “we know best” culture, residents will notice.

Fast.

This is where Reform has to prove it is not just a change of rosettes on the same old machine.

It must involve people.
It must engage residents.
It must publish the evidence.
It must explain the trade-offs.
It must listen before decisions are cooked.
It must not hide behind officers.
It must not treat scrutiny as an irritation.
It must not treat objectors as troublemakers.

And yes — it must involve the awkward squad.

Especially the awkward squad.

Because every council needs people who ask the uncomfortable questions. The people who read the reports. The people who spot the missing appendix. The people who know the history. The people who remember what was promised last time. The people who ask why a green space is suddenly “underused”. The people who ask why employment land is being lost. The people who ask why wages are not mentioned. The people who ask where the GP capacity is. The people who ask whether consultation was real or theatre.

Those people are not the enemy.

They are the early warning system.

Ignore them, and Reform will very quickly discover that Sandwell residents did not vote for a new administration just to get the old habits in a different wrapper.

The Sandwell Test

The test for the Local Plan should be clear.

Does it protect green space?

Does it prioritise brownfield land?

Does it bring empty homes and vacant buildings back into use?

Does it protect proper employment land?

Does it create jobs Sandwell people can actually access?

Does it raise wages, or just count low-paid jobs as “growth”?

Does it force infrastructure before occupation?

Does it protect deprived communities from being dumped on again?

Does it treat consultation as democracy, not decoration?

Does it involve residents early enough to matter?

Does it publish evidence in plain English?

Does it make developers prove local benefit?

If the answer is no, the plan is not good enough.

Sandwell Deserves Better Than Managed Decline

Sandwell has been poor for too long.

Too many people have accepted low wages as normal.
Too many communities have been told to be grateful for scraps.
Too much land has been neglected until someone can make money from it.
Too many decisions have been made over residents’ heads.
Too many consultations have felt like theatre.
Too many green spaces have been eyed up as development opportunities.
Too many schemes have arrived with promises, then left residents with consequences.

That has to stop.

Sandwell needs homes, yes.

But it also needs proper jobs, better wages, skills, apprenticeships, employment land, green space, clean land, good transport, working infrastructure, honest consultation and political courage.

The Local Plan must not lock poverty in for another generation.

And Reform, now in control, needs to understand this very clearly:

Residents will not wait four years to judge you.

They will judge you by whether you open the doors, publish the evidence, involve the awkward squad, protect communities, challenge lazy assumptions, and stop the developer-first culture that has failed Sandwell for far too long.

Because if the new lot behave like the old lot, people will say so.

Loudly.

And some of us have had plenty of practice.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellLocalPlan #ReformSandwell #GreenSpace #BrownfieldFirst #EmploymentLand #JobsAndWages #Regeneration #LocalDemocracy #Planning #Deprivation #CommunityEngagement #AwkwardSquad #Transparency #Accountability