SANDWELL COUNCIL: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT? YOU'LL BE LUCKY TO GET THROUGH THE DOOR

I've spent a fair amount of time recently reading Sandwell Council meeting papers.

Some might say I need to get out more.

But the more of these reports I read, the more one question keeps coming back to me:

How on earth is an ordinary member of the public supposed to properly engage with this Council?

We hear all the right words.

Transparency.

Openness.

Accountability.

Community engagement.

Listening to residents.

The Council's own Constitution talks about encouraging citizen involvement.

Wonderful.

Then you actually read the rules.

And suddenly "public engagement" starts looking remarkably like:

You can engage – providing you jump through enough hoops, get there quickly enough, talk about what we allow you to talk about, and preferably don't come back for six months.

You couldn't make it up.

Three people. That's your lot.

Let's start with Full Council.

Sandwell's Constitution allows up to three members of the public to make a statement.

Not thirty.

Not thirteen.

Three.

And those three people get three minutes each.

So the grand total of formal public speaking time available at Full Council is:

Nine minutes.

Nine minutes for the public at the principal meeting of a metropolitan borough council.

The Constitution is absolutely explicit about it. Rule 12.1 limits participation to three speakers and nine minutes in total.

But it gets better.

Or considerably worse, depending upon your point of view.

Don't call it Public Question Time – because you can't actually question them

This is something that really jumped out at me when I reread the Constitution.

It isn't really Public Question Time.

It's called Public Speaking Time.

You submit a statement.

You read your statement.

And then:

"There will be no opportunity for the speaker to ask questions or respond to any debate by Full Council."

That's actually written into the rules.

The Leader or nominated Cabinet member may respond.

For one minute.

Or they can choose to respond in writing.

There is no supplementary question.

So you can't ask:

"Sorry, but you haven't answered my question."

You can't challenge the answer.

You can't correct something said in response.

You have had your three minutes.

Thank you very much.

Back to the public gallery.

Is that really meaningful public engagement?

I don't think so.

First, read the mountain of paperwork

Here's where it becomes even more ridiculous.

We've been analysing Sandwell's committee papers for some considerable time.

Some packs run to hundreds of pages.

Financial information.

Legal advice.

Equality assessments.

Appendices.

Policies.

Strategies.

Business cases.

Risk registers.

Technical reports.

Sometimes important information isn't even obvious from the main report. You've got to follow it through into an appendix buried another hundred pages into the pack.

Even councillors ought to be asking themselves whether they can genuinely digest everything being put before them.

Yet Sandwell's rules say the meeting summons and reports available at that point need only be issued at least five clear working days before the meeting.

Now look at the public-speaking rule.

The resident must submit the full and final text of their statement by noon on the third day before the meeting, excluding weekends and bank holidays.

Think about that.

You're an ordinary Sandwell resident.

You've got a job.

Or children.

Or caring responsibilities.

Perhaps you're elderly.

Perhaps you're disabled.

Perhaps you're not particularly confident online.

Perhaps you've never read a local-authority committee report in your life.

The agenda appears.

You download hundreds of pages.

You must work out what actually matters.

Understand it.

Research it.

Check the figures.

Work out what questions it raises.

Write a coherent statement.

Make sure it directly relates to an agenda item.

Submit the full and final version by the deadline.

And hope you're one of the first three people.

That's not encouraging participation.

That's designing an obstacle course.

Want to raise something the Council hasn't put on the agenda? Tough.

This one bothers me enormously.

The public statement must directly relate to something already on the Council's agenda.

Just think about the logic of that.

The Council substantially controls its own agenda.

Then the Council says the public may only use Full Council public-speaking time to discuss something the Council has already chosen to put on that agenda.

What about an emerging scandal?

A serious service failure?

A borough-wide environmental problem?

A safeguarding concern?

Something residents desperately want their Council to discuss but which isn't on the agenda?

Under these rules, Full Council public speaking isn't the route for raising it.

That's a very comfortable arrangement if you're the organisation being scrutinised.

Less comfortable if you're the resident trying to do the scrutinising.

And once you've spoken – come back in six months

This is probably my favourite bit of Sandwell-style "engagement".

The Monitoring Officer may reject your application if:

"the speaker has previously spoken at any Full Council meeting in the past six months."

Yes.

Really.

Participate once and your participation itself can become grounds for refusing you another opportunity for six months.

Imagine a resident speaks about housing in January.

Something serious happens with adult social care in March.

Then a major planning or environmental matter comes before Council in May.

Sorry.

You've already had your democratic ration.

Come back later.

The more engaged you are, the more the rules potentially work against you.

How does that sit alongside all those lovely words about encouraging citizen involvement?

Then there's the gatekeeper

The Monitoring Officer can reject a public contribution for several reasons, including if it is considered:

• defamatory;

• frivolous;

• offensive;

• substantially the same as something raised during the previous six months;

• unrelated to an agenda item;

• or submitted by someone who has already spoken during the previous six months.

Some safeguards are obviously necessary. Nobody seriously argues that defamatory or unlawful material should simply be read into a council meeting.

But when you combine all these restrictions, the discretion is substantial.

Where is the simple, independent appeal mechanism for the resident?

Where is the presumption that the public should be heard unless there is a compelling reason otherwise?

What does the evidence tell us?

Perhaps the Council would say I'm being unnecessarily cynical.

Fine.

Then let's look at the outcome.

We've been following Full Council agendas and minutes.

And what has been conspicuous?

Empty public participation sections.

No queue of residents desperate to use this wonderful democratic opportunity.

No flourishing culture of residents questioning their elected authority.

Meetings where no public statements have been submitted.

And no petitions presented at Full Council.

Now, absence doesn't prove why people aren't participating.

But surely somebody at Sandwell should be asking the obvious question:

If virtually nobody is using your Full Council public-participation mechanism, is the problem really the public – or is the mechanism rubbish?

That's the sort of KPI I'd like to see.

How many people applied?

How many were accepted?

How many rejected?

Why?

How many residents have spoken in the last five years?

How many Full Council meetings received no public contribution whatsoever?

How does that compare with other metropolitan councils?

If the answer is almost nobody participates, don't congratulate yourselves on having a participation policy.

Ask why it isn't working.

Even councillors get their questioning rationed

And it isn't only Joe Public.

Councillors' Question Time is limited to 20 minutes, with no extension.

Questions from political groups have to go through their Group Leader or Whip, only the first two submitted are accepted under the rule, and the largest opposition group's leader or nominee gets the express supplementary-question opportunity provided by the Constitution.

This is supposed to be one of the mechanisms through which the Executive is held to account.

Twenty minutes.

For a Council of 72 elected members.

Again, why design the rules around restricting scrutiny rather than facilitating it?

And what about petitions?

Another clarification is important.

Sandwell does have other petition routes, including petitions that can reach its Petitions Committee with considerably fewer signatures.

But if you want a petition presented at Full Council, the Constitution imposes additional requirements around borough-wide or strategic significance.

That raises another perfectly reasonable question:

How easy should it be for a substantial community concern to reach the borough's principal democratic chamber?

The answer shouldn't automatically be: make it as difficult as possible.

This Constitution needs reopening

The Constitution was comprehensively reviewed under the previous Labour administration.

Reform inherited it when they took control in May.

So I'm not blaming Reform for creating these particular rules.

But here's the important bit.

They own what happens next.

And actually, this is an opportunity.

Reform came into Sandwell promising change.

Well, here's some change that doesn't require another glossy strategy, consultant or twelve-month review.

Open the doors.

Make Full Council genuinely accessible.

Bring back real public questions, not merely pre-submitted statements.

Allow residents to raise legitimate matters of borough concern even where officers or the administration haven't conveniently put them on that evening's agenda.

Abolish the ridiculous six-month restriction.

Increase public speaking time.

Allow reasonable supplementary questions.

Publish major reports earlier wherever possible.

When enormous packs are unavoidable, produce a proper plain-English public summary explaining:

What are councillors being asked to decide?
How much does it cost?
Who is affected?
What are the risks?
What alternatives were considered?
How can residents comment?

And publish statistics showing whether the public-participation system is actually being used.

Reform can do something important here

There is a temptation whenever political control changes for the new administration simply to inherit the machinery and learn how to operate it.

That would be a mistake.

If Reform genuinely wants to demonstrate that Sandwell Council has changed, then change the machinery as well.

Don't merely say you're listening.

Create a Constitution which makes listening unavoidable.

Don't be frightened of awkward questions.

Don't design procedures around avoiding them.

Invite challenge.

Publish information earlier.

Let residents question the people making decisions.

And if somebody says something the administration doesn't particularly like?

Good.

That's democracy.

Public engagement isn't supposed to be comfortable.

Accountability isn't supposed to be convenient.

And Full Council shouldn't resemble a private members' club where the public are permitted nine minutes on sufferance before the politicians get on with the real business.

Sandwell's Constitution says it wants to encourage citizen involvement.

Then perhaps it's time Sandwell's Constitution actually did it.

Reform now has the opportunity to rip up the barriers inherited from the previous administration and replace them with something genuinely open, accessible and democratic.

They should take it.

Because three people, three minutes each, agenda items only, no supplementary questions and then potentially six months before you're allowed another go isn't public engagement.

It's public engagement squeezed so tightly that it's hardly surprising nobody appears to be using it.

And if we really are serious about changing Sandwell...

that would be a very good place to start.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #PublicEngagement #PublicQuestions #Democracy #Transparency #Accountability #FullCouncil #CouncilWatch #LocalDemocracy #ReformUK #OpenGovernment

 

320 Pages, Plenty of Questions – Now We Wait to See What Sandwell’s Audit Committee Actually Said

I had hoped to keep a live eye on Sandwell Council’s Audit & Risk Assurance Committee meeting on 27 July 2026, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend.

That means I couldn’t give the usual live updates, listen to the questions being asked, hear the answers given by officers and auditors, or pick up on those little exchanges that very often tell you far more than the carefully written committee report ever does.

So, for the avoidance of any doubt, this article is based on the papers councillors had in front of them before the meeting.

And there were rather a lot of them.

The agenda pack ran to a staggering:

320 PAGES

Yes. Three hundred and twenty pages for one Audit & Risk Assurance Committee meeting.

I have gone through them because buried amongst the accounting language, risk matrices, action plans, audit terminology and reassuring management commentary are some issues that I think deserve considerably more attention.

We now have to wait for the draft minutes to see what members actually did with all that information.

And, judging by the way these things tend to work, I am not exactly holding my breath for those minutes to appear overnight.

There could well be a significant wait before the draft record becomes publicly available.

As soon as I receive or see the minutes, I will update this review.

Because what was put before councillors is only half the story.

The other half is:

What did they actually ask about it?

First things first – Sandwell isn't going bankrupt

Let's knock that one on the head before somebody decides that is what this article says.

It doesn't.

The papers do not suggest Sandwell Council is about to run out of money.

The General Fund position is, in many respects, relatively resilient.

But having reserves and balancing the books is not the same thing as having robust systems, good controls and reliable independent assurance.

And assurance is where this 320-page monster becomes very interesting indeed.

Because underneath all those wonderfully comforting phrases such as:

“Reasonable Assurance”

“Progress is being made”

“Actions are ongoing”

and the absolute council classic:

“Members are asked to note…”

there are some pretty hefty warning signs.

Another disclaimed audit opinion

Grant Thornton's papers indicate that Sandwell is expected to receive another disclaimed audit opinion for 2025/26.

Let's explain that properly because it is very easy to sensationalise.

It does not mean Grant Thornton has declared Sandwell's accounts fraudulent.

It does not necessarily mean the accounts are wrong.

A disclaimer essentially means the auditor has not been able to obtain sufficient reliable evidence to give an audit opinion.

But let's not go too far the other way and pretend that doesn't matter either.

It matters.

A lot.

The anticipated route back to normality appears to be:

2024/25 – Disclaimed

2025/26 – Another disclaimer expected

2026/27 – Qualified opinion anticipated

2027/28 – Hopefully back to an unmodified, or clean, opinion

Hopefully.

Because that is a recovery trajectory rather than a guarantee.

My question would therefore have been very simple:

What exactly has to happen over the next two years for Sandwell to get back to a clean audit opinion?

Closely followed by:

What could go wrong and knock that recovery off course?

That's the sort of answer I shall be looking for in the minutes.

“Reasonable Assurance” – lovely. Now turn the page.

The overall Internal Audit opinion is Reasonable Assurance.

Sounds nice.

But I have long since learned that you should never stop reading a council report when you reach the reassuring bit.

There were 25 assurance-rated audits.

Of those:

3 received Substantial Assurance

16 received Reasonable Assurance

and

6 received Limited Assurance

And those six weren't reviews of the office stationery cupboard.

They included:

SEND placement costs

Sandwell Children's Trust financial outturn

Procurement and contract compliance

Payroll

Boscobel Tenant Management Organisation

Housing electrical safety inspections

That is quite a list.

Then we get to the recommendations.

There were nine Fundamental recommendations.

The clue might just be in the word Fundamental.

Surely those should be receiving serious committee attention?

Here's the figure that really made me sit up

Internal Audit tested 103 previous recommendations.

How many had been fully implemented?

56.

Another 23 were only partly completed or remained ongoing.

And 22 had not been actioned.

Therein lies one of my biggest bugbears with council reports.

We constantly read statements along the lines of:

“Management has accepted the recommendations.”

Fantastic.

Give everybody a biscuit.

Accepting a recommendation isn't fixing the problem.

You can accept recommendations until the cows come home.

The important questions are:

Has it been done?

When was it done?

Who checked it?

And has Internal Audit gone back and independently verified that it actually works?

Anything less and we are simply creating another action plan to go into another committee report.

Procurement – keep your eye on this one

Procurement and Contract Compliance received Limited Assurance.

A follow-up of previous work found that 7 out of 10 recommendations remained unactioned.

Seven.

Out of ten.

The latest audit also raised issues around incomplete audit trails, declarations of interests, missing documentation, the contract register and instances involving exemptions and awards above £1 million not being formally reported as required.

Now let me be absolutely clear.

That is not evidence of corruption or wrongdoing.

But neither should anyone dismiss it as paperwork.

Procurement is where very large amounts of taxpayers' money leave the building.

The controls around that money ought to be watertight.

The contracts should be recorded.

The declarations should be complete.

The approvals should be there.

The reporting should happen.

It shouldn't require Internal Audit repeatedly telling people to do it.

What happened to the Children's Trust problems?

This is one I particularly want to see reflected in the minutes.

At the previous Audit Committee meeting members received a pretty uncomfortable report concerning Sandwell Children's Trust's 2024/25 financial outturn.

Internal Audit awarded Limited Assurance.

Amongst the findings were three substantial manual payment runs totalling around:

£2.732 MILLION

These were processed outside the main financial system and had not been properly reflected in the general ledger.

There were also weaknesses around reconciliations, reporting and financial controls.

We were told corrective action was being taken.

The committee requested regular updates.

Excellent.

So where is the update?

Did members ask for one on 27 July?

Has Internal Audit gone back in?

Have the reconciliations been tested?

Have the manual payment controls been tested?

Have the Oracle-related problems been properly resolved?

Or have we moved from:

“There is a problem”

to:

“Management tells us the problem is fixed”

without reaching the important third stage:

“Internal Audit has checked and agrees it is fixed.”

I shall be watching the minutes very carefully for that.

A £2.741 million underspend – sounds good doesn't it?

The overall General Fund position shows an underspend of around £2.741 million.

Good news.

But don't stop reading.

Children & Education overspent by around £2.921 million.

Adult Social Care & Health overspent by around £2.881 million.

Those pressures were absorbed by underspends elsewhere.

So rather than simply shouting:

“£2.7 million underspend!”

perhaps we should ask what is happening underneath it.

Are the same services repeatedly under financial pressure?

Are those pressures structural?

Can the compensating underspends elsewhere be repeated?

And what happens if they can't?

Much less exciting than a headline, granted.

But considerably more useful.

SEND – another flashing warning light

The Dedicated Schools Grant recorded an in-year overspend of around £11.6 million.

The cumulative deficit was around £6.3 million.

The High Needs block is a major factor.

Demand is increasing.

Complexity is increasing.

Specialist placements cost serious money.

And remember what else appeared in the same 320-page pack?

SEND Placement Costs – Limited Assurance.

This is exactly why councillors need to read across reports.

The accounts tell you there is financial pressure.

Internal Audit tells you there are control issues.

The risk framework tells you whether management believes that exposure is being controlled.

Put the three together and you start getting the real picture.

£56 million of capital spending didn't happen when planned

Here's another cracker.

General Fund capital spending was around £26 million below the revised programme.

The Housing Revenue Account programme was around £30.2 million below.

Combined:

MORE THAN £56 MILLION

of planned capital activity wasn't delivered during the year.

Now we get the lovely phrase “reprofiling”.

One of those council words that sounds so much better.

Reprofiling.

It sounds almost sophisticated.

In plain English it often means:

“We planned to spend it this year, but the project has slipped into another year.”

There will obviously be legitimate reasons for some projects moving.

But £56 million is not loose change.

Which schemes slipped?

Why?

Procurement delays?

Contractor problems?

Staff shortages?

Planning?

Project management?

Schemes not ready when the budget was approved?

And most importantly, does all of this simply pile additional pressure into the following year's programme?

Those are the questions.

Housing – Amber? Really?

Sandwell remains under a C3 judgement from the Regulator of Social Housing.

There has been improvement and I have no problem whatsoever acknowledging that.

But improvement does not mean the job is finished.

Within this same Audit pack we have a Limited Assurance audit covering electrical safety inspections.

There is also substantial Housing Revenue Account capital slippage.

Yet Housing Improvement sits on the Strategic Risk Register at Amber.

It might be entirely defensible.

But I'd certainly ask:

Why isn't it Red?

And more importantly:

What evidence demonstrates that Amber is the correct residual risk?

Don't just give members a coloured box.

Explain why it is that colour.

Then comes the Annual Governance Statement

This is another of those documents where you have to admire the language.

The overall conclusion is that the Council's governance arrangements remain effective.

Excellent.

But then we are presented with six areas requiring significant governance attention.

These include:

companies, partnerships and arm's-length bodies;

compliance with governance procedures;

financial sustainability and transformation;

housing governance and regulation;

organisational capacity;

and member development and governance capability.

Let's put that alongside everything else.

Six Limited Assurance audits.

Nine Fundamental recommendations.

Another expected external audit disclaimer.

Housing C3.

SEND pressure.

Children's Trust control failures.

Procurement weaknesses.

And six significant governance issues.

Yet overall governance remains effective.

Perhaps that conclusion is absolutely correct.

But surely the role of Audit Committee members is to ask:

Show us why.

Not just accept the sentence because it is written near the end of an official report.

PFI – easily missed amongst 320 pages

Four PFI financial models were undergoing specialist review.

At the time the draft accounts were produced the potential accounting adjustment could not yet be quantified.

Maybe nothing particularly dramatic will emerge.

It might be a technical accounting exercise.

But until the work is finished, surely somebody ought to ask:

Could this materially alter the final accounts?

And:

Could any adjustments reach backwards into previous financial years?

Again, hopefully the minutes will tell us whether anybody did.

Audit Committee shouldn't be about politics

I have said this before.

The Audit & Risk Assurance Committee ought to be one of the least party-political committees at Sandwell Council.

I couldn't care less whether the person asking the awkward question is Reform, Labour, Green or Independent.

Ask the bloody question.

This is public money.

Public services.

Public assets.

Financial controls.

Contracts.

Risk.

Governance.

Housing safety.

Children's services.

The committee's job isn't to cheerlead the administration.

Nor should it be somewhere for the opposition to manufacture cheap political points.

Its job is to scrutinise.

Properly.

Ask what went wrong.

Ask why.

Ask who's responsible for fixing it.

Ask for a deadline.

And then make sure somebody comes back and proves it was fixed.

That's audit.

Not:

“Thank you for the comprehensive report.”

followed by:

“Noted.”

Unfortunately, I couldn't be there

I wasn't able to attend the 27 July meeting.

That is frustrating because I would have liked to listen to the debate firsthand and report live on what members were actually asking.

You cannot always get the flavour of a meeting from the eventual minutes.

Who pushed?

Who followed up?

Who challenged an answer?

Who sat silently?

Did an officer hesitate?

Did the auditor add a qualification that doesn't eventually make it into two lines of minutes?

Those things matter.

But I couldn't be there, so I'm not going to pretend I know what happened in the room.

I don't.

What I do know is what was sitting in those 320 pages before councillors entered the chamber.

And there was plenty there to keep them occupied.

Now comes the wait for the minutes

And no doubt this is where patience will be required.

I don't expect a detailed draft record to magically appear the morning after the meeting.

There can be a significant delay between a council meeting taking place and the draft minutes becoming publicly available.

That is frustrating when the issues being discussed are current and the public quite reasonably wants to know what happened.

So for now this remains my pre-minutes review.

As soon as I receive the draft minutes, or they are published, I will update this article.

And then we can compare the two.

What was in the papers?

against

What was actually scrutinised?

Did members pursue the expected audit disclaimer?

Did they ask about those nine Fundamental recommendations?

What happened with Children's Trust?

Was procurement challenged?

Did somebody ask why Housing remains Amber?

Was the £56 million capital slippage properly explored?

Were SEND pressures discussed?

Was the PFI uncertainty questioned?

And did anybody ask how six significant governance issues sit alongside the conclusion that overall governance remains effective?

Maybe they did.

I genuinely hope they did.

Until we get the minutes, we simply don't know.

But when they arrive, I'll be going through them against the 320-page agenda pack and the issues I've highlighted here.

Because publishing hundreds of pages does not create transparency by itself.

Holding a committee meeting does not automatically create scrutiny either.

The test is what councillors actually did with the information.

And, ultimately, whether anything changes as a result.

Watch this space.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #AuditAndRisk #AuditCommittee #CouncilScrutiny #PublicMoney #CouncilAccounts #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #InternalAudit #ExternalAudit #GrantThornton #SandwellChildrensTrust #SEND #SandwellHousing #Procurement #CapitalProgramme #LocalGovernment #LocalDemocracy #PublicInterest #SandwellPolitics #BlackCountry #WatchThisSpace

 

Sandwell Planning Committee: The Condition Factory Keeps Turning

There is a wonderful phrase that keeps popping up in Sandwell planning reports.

“Grant permission subject to conditions.”

It sounds reassuring, doesn’t it?

Like everything has been checked.
Like every problem has been solved.
Like residents can all go home, stop worrying, and trust the process.

Except when you read through the latest Sandwell Planning Committee pack for 29 July 2026, a rather different picture emerges.

Because this is not just a planning agenda.

This is a 300-page showcase of how modern Sandwell planning too often works:

identify the problems, list the objections, acknowledge the policy conflict, then approve it anyway with a shopping list of conditions.

Noise? Condition.
Drainage? Condition.
Odour? Condition.
Parking? Condition.
BNG? Condition.
Security? Condition.
Waste? Condition.
Construction disruption? Condition.
Management plan? Condition.
Enforcement later? Of course.

Welcome to Sandwell’s planning comfort blanket.

The public can attend — but can they scrutinise properly?

The meeting is listed for Wednesday 29 July 2026 at 5.30pm in the Council Chamber at Sandwell Council House. The public can attend, and speakers have to register in advance.

So far, so democratic.

But here is the sting.

The pack includes the minutes of the previous Planning Committee meeting held on 10 June 2026. Useful? Yes. Timely? Not really.

Because those minutes appear inside the next agenda pack.

That means residents had to wait until the next Planning Committee paperwork was uploaded before seeing the formal record of what happened at the last meeting.

That is not good enough.

Planning decisions are not minor admin. They affect streets, schools, parking, businesses, children’s homes, green space, neighbours, noise, traffic and public trust.

If minutes are completed, they should be published.

Not hidden away until the next committee cycle.
Not left sitting in the system.
Not drip-fed only when the next agenda appears.

Residents should not need to wait weeks to find out what councillors actually decided, what was said, what was deferred, what was refused, and what was nodded through with another pile of conditions attached.

This needs looking at through the Council’s Constitution Review.

Draft minutes should be published as soon as they are completed and cleared. Simple.

Public scrutiny delayed is public scrutiny weakened.

Eight out of nine: the magic words again

The 29 July agenda lists nine planning applications.

Only one is recommended for refusal.

The other eight are recommended for approval subject to conditions.

There it is again.

Grant permission subject to conditions.

And that is the real theme of this meeting.

Not just one application.
Not just one ward.
Not just one awkward report.

A pattern.

McDonald’s in Cradley Heath: policy conflict, public objections — but jobs apparently save the day

One of the biggest red flags is the proposed McDonald’s drive-thru at 63–68 St Annes Road, Cradley Heath.

The report itself says there are 54 material planning objections, a petition against with 92 signatures, and 19 representations of support.

It also says the proposal is a departure from the development plan.

Let that sink in.

The site is allocated for housing in the current adopted plan.
It is shown for employment use in the emerging plan.
And now along comes a McDonald’s drive-thru.

Housing? No.
Employment land in the proper planning sense? Not really.
Fast food drive-thru with cars, litter, odour, late-night activity and public health concerns? Yes.

But officers recommend approval because, on balance, the economic investment and jobs are said to outweigh the policy conflict.

Ah, the old jobs card.

The report then proposes conditions for BNG, contamination, drainage, waste bins, air quality, acoustic fencing, plant noise, odour control, lighting, construction management, opening hours, delivery hours, parking retention and off-site highway works.

So there we are.

Policy conflict?
Public objections?
Petition?
Health concerns?
Late-night operation until midnight?

Don’t worry. Conditions will sort it.

Apparently.

Fast food and public health: a loophole big enough for a drive-thru lane?

The National Planning Policy Framework has been tightened around fast food near schools and places where children and young people congregate.

That should matter.

But the report appears to take the view that the nearby Cradley Heath Skills Centre does not count as a school or a place where young people congregate for the purposes of that policy.

That is a very convenient interpretation.

The public may be forgiven for asking:

How many young people need to be present before public health policy matters?
How close is close enough?
How much fast food is too much?
How many objections are enough?
And when does Sandwell’s health agenda actually bite?

Because if an area can already have concerns about health and hot food takeaways, and a fast-food drive-thru can still be recommended because of jobs and conditions, then what exactly is the policy for?

Decoration?

Tipton and Tividale Islamic Centre: refusal may be right — but get the numbers straight

The proposed expansion of Tipton and Tividale Islamic Centre is recommended for refusal.

This is clearly sensitive and must be handled properly.

There are objections.
There are also 113 letters of support.
The application has already been deferred for a site visit.

The planning issues should be strictly about parking, highways, scale, massing, residential amenity, design and whether any parking solution is enforceable.

No nonsense.
No prejudice.
No culture-war stupidity.

But there is a problem.

The figures need to be absolutely nailed down.

The reports and minutes refer to different numbers around floor-space increase, parking requirements and spaces provided. At one point the increase is discussed as 200% or 300%. Parking figures also need to be crystal clear.

If councillors are being asked to refuse a community facility, then the evidence must be watertight.

Not nearly right.
Not “you know what we mean.”
Watertight.

A refusal may be defensible. But it must be based on clean figures, not fog.

Children’s homes: Sandwell needs a map, not a shrug

The pack also brings back the recurring issue of children’s residential care homes.

At the previous meeting, 40 Longleat, Great Barr was refused because members considered the proposed children’s home was not in keeping with the locality and not suitable.

Now we have 11 Hydes Road, Wednesbury, recommended for approval as a children’s residential care home for children aged 5 to 19.

We also have 2 Butler Street, West Bromwich, a proposed change from HMO to residential home for up to two children.

Let us be very clear.

Children in care need safe, stable, properly run homes.

That should not even need saying.

But planning still has to deal with location, parking, staff movements, neighbours, management, noise, intensity of use and cumulative impact.

What Sandwell cannot keep doing is treating every children’s home application like it is the only one in the borough.

It is not.

Residents are seeing the pattern.
Councillors should be seeing the pattern.
Officers should be reporting the pattern.

Where is the borough-wide map?
Where is the ward breakdown?
Where is the clustering analysis?
Where is the link-up between planning, children’s services, safeguarding and Ofsted information?
Where is the record of operators with multiple sites?

If Longleat was unsuitable, what makes Hydes Road suitable?
What makes Butler Street suitable?
What are the consistent criteria?

Or are we just making it up application by application?

HMOs and children’s homes: two separate files, one bigger picture

Then there is 10 Wharfedale Street, Wednesbury, where an existing six-bedroom, six-person HMO is proposed to become a seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO.

One extra person may sound minor.

But again, look at the pattern.

HMOs.
HMO intensification.
HMO-to-children’s-home conversions.
Residential streets under pressure.
Parking stress.
Bins.
Management plans.
Security conditions.
Neighbours told not to worry.

At some point the Council has to stop pretending these are just isolated dots.

They need joining up.

A single HMO application may pass the test.
A single children’s home may pass the test.
A single outbuilding may pass the test.

But what happens when a street or ward gets several of them?

That is the question Sandwell keeps avoiding.

Edmonds Road: “don’t worry, enforcement will deal with it”

At 26 Edmonds Road, Oldbury, the application includes rear extensions, a front porch and a large rear outbuilding for a gym/games room with sauna, steam room, toilet and store.

Residents raised concerns about light, privacy, outlook, design, wildlife, noise, smells and intended use.

The report says the Council cannot refuse based on speculation about future breaches. If the outbuilding is later used wrongly, that becomes an enforcement matter.

In planning terms, that may be correct.

But to residents, it sounds like this:

Approve it now.
Wait and see.
Complain later.
Hope enforcement turns up.

And that is the problem.

If enforcement is the safety net, residents need to know there is actually a net.

How many enforcement officers are there?
How quickly do they respond?
How many breaches are investigated?
How many conditions are checked?
How many notices are served?
Where is the public dashboard?

Because “planning enforcement will deal with it” is not reassuring if nobody can see the enforcement working.

Annual Report: don’t just nod it through

The agenda also includes the Annual Report of the Planning Committee 2025–2026.

This should not be treated as a box-ticking exercise.

Councillors should not just nod politely, thank officers, and move on.

A proper annual report should tell the public what is really happening in the planning system.

How many retrospective applications?
How many departures from the development plan?
How many applications approved subject to major conditions?
How many appeals lost?
How many HMOs approved?
How many children’s homes approved?
How many conditions discharged?
How many enforcement cases opened?
How many delegated decisions involved sensitive uses?
How many locally listed buildings were lost?
How many SLINC or biodiversity issues came up?

If the Annual Report does not identify patterns, risks and lessons, then it is not scrutiny.

It is filing.

Delegated decisions: where patterns can disappear

The pack also includes delegated decisions and Planning Inspectorate decisions.

These matter.

A lot of applications never reach committee. They are handled under delegated powers. That is normal and necessary, but it can also hide trends from public view.

If HMOs, children’s homes, lawful development certificates, extensions, retrospective works and change-of-use cases are being approved outside committee, councillors need proper trend reporting.

Not just lists.
Not just “noted.”
Not just “move on.”

Planning Committee should be asking what the delegated decisions reveal.

Because sometimes the story is not in one big controversial application.

Sometimes the story is in the drip, drip, drip.

The questions councillors should be asking

Here are a few starters.

Why are eight out of nine applications recommended for approval subject to conditions?

When were the 10 June minutes completed, and why were they not published sooner?

Will Planning Committee minutes now be published as soon as they are completed and cleared?

On McDonald’s, why does job creation outweigh conflict with both the adopted and emerging site allocations?

Why is the Skills Centre not treated as a place where young people congregate?

Why is approval being recommended before all drainage responses are complete?

On the Islamic Centre, what are the correct floor-space and parking figures?

Given Longleat was refused, what makes Hydes Road and Butler Street acceptable?

Where is the borough-wide map of children’s home applications?

Where is the ward-by-ward map of HMOs and HMO intensification?

Where can residents see whether planning conditions have been discharged?

Where is the enforcement performance data?

And the big one:

Are conditions being used to make uncertain or uncomfortable applications look acceptable on paper?

The bottom line

This Planning Committee pack is not reassuring.

It shows a planning system that repeatedly asks residents to trust future conditions, future management plans, future drainage details, future enforcement, future monitoring and future officer judgement.

But residents do not live in future conditions.

They live next to the traffic.
They live with the parking.
They hear the noise.
They smell the odour.
They see the bins.
They deal with the consequences when something approved on paper does not work in real life.

Sandwell Council needs to stop treating minutes as slow-release democracy.

Publish them promptly.
Show the public the decisions.
Show the conditions.
Show the enforcement.
Show the patterns.
Show the councillors are actually challenging the system.

Because right now the message looks far too much like this:

Approve subject to conditions.
Publish the minutes later.
Hope the public moves on.

That is not transparency.

That is not scrutiny.

And it is certainly not the planning culture Sandwell residents deserve.

#SandwellCouncil #SandwellPlanning #PlanningCommittee #PlanningScrutiny #CouncilAccountability #LocalGovernment #PublicScrutiny #Transparency #Governance #ModernGov #CouncilMinutes #PublishTheMinutes #PlanningConditions #SubjectToConditions #PlanningEnforcement #ConditionFactory #ResidentsMatter #CommunityVoice #PublicTrust #CradleyHeath #McDonaldsCradleyHeath #StAnnesRoad #Tipton #Tividale #IslamicCentre #Wednesbury #HydesRoad #WharfedaleStreet #WestBromwich #ButlerStreet #Oldbury #EdmondsRoad #GreatBarr #HMOs #ChildrensHomes #CareHomes #PlanningPolicy #LocalPlan #EmergingLocalPlan #PublicHealth #FastFoodPlanning #Traffic #Parking #Noise #Odour #Litter #ASB #BiodiversityNetGain #BNG #PlanningBalance #TiltedBalance #DarrylMagher

Reform Sandwell: Be The Change — Not The Old Machine With A New Rosette

There is a Full Council meeting in Sandwell on Tuesday 28 July 2026, following the earlier Extraordinary meeting. The main agenda is not short of flashpoints: member questions, urgent school capital decisions, standards, HMOs, libraries, SEND, workplace heat, Borough of Sanctuary, and the small matter of whether scrutiny is being quietly shoved into the long grass.

And after going through the pack, the questions and the motions, my view is simple:

Sandwell voted for Reform leadership.
Not old Tory habits.
Not Labour-style managed democracy with a different badge.
Not dictatorship by a small inner circle.
Not “trust us, we know best.”

People wanted a clean out.
A fresh broom.
A proper reform of the council.
A council that involves residents, councillors, officers, communities and campaigners.
A council that listens before deciding, not one that decides and then manages the explanation afterwards.

We need to be part of the change — not dictated to, ignored, patronised or placed in the public gallery while decisions are cooked elsewhere.

So here is my take, item by item, as a member of the public watching closely.

Item 6(a) — Cllr Luke Davies and the Jonathan Fox social media smear

Cllr Luke Davies is asking the Leader about alleged social media comments attributed to Cllr Jonathan Fox, reportedly covered by the BBC.

I oppose this line of questioning.

Not because genuine hatred should be ignored. Real hate, threats, harassment and abuse should be dealt with properly.

But this looks like Labour rummaging through the political dustbin, dragging up an old social media share, and trying to turn it into another chamber performance.

No religion, belief system, political ideology or public figure is above satire, ridicule or criticism.

People are protected from hate.
Ideas are not protected from challenge.

That distinction matters.

Labour in Sandwell should be very careful before climbing onto the moral high horse. This is the same political culture that has seen years of smears, press allegations, internal faction fighting, cover-ups, hidden reports and selective outrage.

They were happy enough to water down serious concerns around CSE, grooming gangs and the national inquiry into generic Violence Against Women and Girls language when the issue needed honesty, clarity and courage.

They were happy enough to allow a councillor convicted of assault to become Mayor.

So spare us the sudden performance of delicate outrage.

Reform should not be weak on this. If there is a proper standards complaint, let it go through the proper process. But do not let Labour and their campaign networks use stale social media scraps as a political cosh.

My position: oppose the smear politics. Defend lawful free speech. Rescind vague political definitions that chill debate. Support a proper national inquiry into grooming gangs and make sure Sandwell is part of it.

Line:
“Satire is not hate speech. Criticism of religion is not hatred of people. Sandwell has real problems — get on with the job.”

Item 6(b) — Cllr Ritchie Massey, the café and planning

Cllr Tirath Dhatt asks whether the Leader knew of planning issues linked to a business operated by Cllr Ritchie Massey before appointing him to Cabinet.

This one needs calm heads.

I support the café. I have been there. I have had a very decent B.E.S.T sandwich there. It appears well used, visible, valued and useful in a business park setting.

This is not some hidden nuisance premises causing anti-social behaviour, injury or chaos. It appears to serve a need. Social media shows people use it and appreciate it.

But — and this is important — the planning position clearly needs answering.

How did it get this far?

Was it blind ignorance?
Was it naivety?
Was it unclear advice?
Was it officer failure?
Was it a council system that saw the business, registered the food operation, drove past it hundreds of times, and still failed to join the dots?

If it is visible on the way into Oldbury and the Council House, then plenty of officers and councillors must have known it existed.

So the question is not just “what did Ritchie Massey do?”
The bigger question is “what has Sandwell Council’s system been doing?”

The café should be regularised if it can be. The process should be lawful, transparent and consistent. No special treatment — but no political witch-hunt either.

And Reform locally should stop gagging people to the point of absurdity. Sensible legal advice is one thing. Micromanaging councillors and their business affairs to the point nobody can speak to anyone is ridiculous. Some people are trying to help.

My position: support the café continuing if it can be regularised lawfully; demand an inquiry into how the planning issue was allowed to drift.

Line:
“Support the business. Respect the planning process. No special treatment. No witch-hunt. But find out how Sandwell let it get this far.”

Item 6(g) — Holiday food vouchers and the Crisis and Resilience Fund

Cllr Pam Randhawa asks why school holiday food vouchers for children receiving free school meals have been scrapped under the new Crisis and Resilience Fund criteria, how many families and children are affected, and what impact assessment was carried out.

This is a serious question and Reform needs a serious answer.

If automatic support has been replaced by an application-based hardship route, then families may fall through the cracks.

Some will not know.
Some will not apply.
Some will be too proud.
Some will be too chaotic.
Some will hit limits.
Some children will simply lose out.

This cannot be answered with “families can apply.” That is not good enough.

My position: Reform must publish the numbers, the impact assessment, the criteria, the mitigation and the monitoring. If the old system was flawed, say so. But do not pretend an application obstacle course is the same as direct support.

Line:
“Hungry children do not eat process notes. Show the impact assessment.”

Item 8 — Urgent Leader decision on school capital works

The Leader approved £1,782,167 of School Condition Allocation funding as an urgent decision because the June Cabinet meeting was cancelled and works needed to happen over summer. The report says delays could have affected schools reopening safely, with heating, hot water, building condition and asbestos-notification issues involved.

The works may well be necessary.

But the governance is poor.

If these works were time-critical, why was the June Cabinet cancelled?
Why was there no extraordinary Cabinet?
Why was this not planned earlier?
Why does the report describe serious risks and then state there are no direct risk implications?

This is exactly the sort of thing that should go to scrutiny.

My position: do the school works, but scrutinise the governance. Necessary work should not be used as a free pass for poor process.

Line:
“Cabinet cancelled, urgent Leader decision, asbestos and reopening risks described — then the paperwork says ‘no risk’. Peak Sandwell.”

Item 11(a) — Our Borough Doesn’t Need Labels

This motion says Sandwell should no longer subscribe to or seek accreditation under Borough of Sanctuary / City of Sanctuary, while saying the borough remains diverse, inclusive and welcoming.

I support the direction.

But it does not go far enough.

Sandwell does not just have a Borough of Sanctuary label problem. It has a pledge, charter, covenant, badge, framework, declaration, partnership and accreditation problem.

Labour loved this stuff.

A badge for everything.
A pledge for everyone.
A logo for every issue.
A lanyard for every meeting.
A press release for every virtue.

Meanwhile residents still had damp homes, dirty streets, overflowing bins, SEND pressure, planning frustration, poor scrutiny and hidden reports.

If Reform is serious, it should not just remove one label. It should audit the lot.

Every pledge.
Every charter.
Every covenant.
Every accreditation.
Every external framework.
Every ideological commitment signed up to in residents’ names.

What does it cost?
Who approved it?
What officer time does it consume?
What does it deliver?
What law requires it?
What outcomes can be proven?
Should it be kept, merged, amended or scrapped?

My position: support the motion but strengthen it with a full Sandwell pledge-and-accreditation audit.

Suggested amendment:
“Council further resolves to instruct officers to bring forward within six months a full audit of every pledge, charter, covenant, accreditation, external label and ideological framework adopted or supported by Sandwell Council, setting out the cost, officer time, legal basis, governance route, external obligations and measurable outcomes of each, with recommendations on which should be kept, merged, amended or scrapped.”

Line:
“Sandwell needs services, not slogans. Delivery, not badges. Outcomes, not lanyards.”

Item 11(b) — HMOs and planning regulations

This motion calls for HMO-related planning applications to go to Planning Committee where lawful, and for work towards an Article 4 Direction.

I support this motion.

HMOs have become one of the biggest planning pressure points in parts of Sandwell. Residents are concerned about parking, waste, amenity, over-concentration, management, community balance and delegated decisions.

But the motion should be sharpened.

We need evidence.
Ward-level data.
Maps.
Complaint records.
Enforcement history.
Planning appeal outcomes.
A timetable for Article 4.
And scrutiny involvement.

My position: support, but strengthen with a clear timetable, evidence base and ward-level transparency.

Line:
“Residents want control over HMO saturation. Give them maps, data, scrutiny and a timetable — not just warm words.”

Item 11(c) — Orchard School and SEND

This motion raises industrial action at The Orchard School and wider SEND concerns, including staffing, workload, health and safety, leadership, workforce wellbeing and SEND sustainability.

I support the principle of this motion.

SEND is not a political toy. It is one of the biggest moral, financial and operational pressures facing Sandwell.

Children, families and staff are caught in the middle. Reform would be foolish to dismiss this as Labour mischief.

But Labour should also be careful. Many of these pressures did not magically appear in May 2026. They were building under the previous administration too.

My position: support proper scrutiny of Orchard School and SEND, but widen it into a borough-wide SEND workforce, sufficiency and financial-risk review.

Line:
“SEND is not Labour’s stick or Reform’s inconvenience. It is a live crisis for children, families and staff.”

Item 11(d) — Protecting Overview and Scrutiny

This is the big one.

The motion says public scrutiny meetings have been postponed until September, and opposition councillors have been told they can no longer ask questions or sit in the lower chamber at Cabinet, only the public gallery with no interaction.

I support this motion.

Scrutiny is imperative.

And frankly, the farce of the last Cabinet meeting proved exactly why.

If major reports are being taken at Cabinet with minimal visible challenge, while scrutiny is delayed and opposition councillors are pushed away from engagement, then residents are entitled to worry.

Reform cannot campaign against Labour’s closed shop and then build its own with new branding.

The public voted for change.
Not control.
Not gagging.
Not old Tory habits.
Not a return to the tired old ways of twenty-plus years ago in Sandwell.

We need honesty, openness, transparency and public trust.

I would go further than the motion. All substantive reports brought to the last Cabinet meeting should be pulled back out and sent to the appropriate scrutiny panels for post-decision review.

If Cabinet has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear.

My position: support the motion and strengthen it.

Suggested amendment:
“Council further resolves that all substantive reports considered by Cabinet since the commencement of the new administration, including reports considered at the most recent Cabinet meeting, be referred to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Board for post-decision review, public challenge and assurance. Council further requests that the Monitoring Officer provide written clarification to all members within 14 days on the constitutional position regarding attendance, seating and speaking rights of non-executive councillors at Cabinet meetings.”

And yes, Cllr Ash Lewis and Labour need to look in the mirror too. There were many matters under the previous Labour council where residents did not get proper answers, proper challenge or proper follow-through.

So let us not pretend Labour invented sunlight this week.

But that does not make the motion wrong.

Everyone needs to do better.

Line:
“Labour discovering scrutiny after losing power is rich — but Reform must not become the old machine with a different driver.”

Item 11(e) — Libraries

This motion calls for all existing library services and the mobile library to remain open and for libraries to be enhanced as community hubs.

I support this.

Libraries are not luxuries. They are community infrastructure.

They support children, older people, jobseekers, people without internet access, isolated residents, community groups and those who still need a human being rather than a QR code and a website that sends you in circles.

But again, strengthen it.

Publish usage data.
Publish building condition data.
Publish costs.
Consult communities before changes.
Protect the mobile library.
Make libraries genuine community hubs, not warm-word waiting rooms for future cuts.

My position: support, but demand transparency on data, costs, condition and any future service changes.

Line:
“Libraries are where people go when everything else is cut, closed or shoved online.”

Item 11(f) — Standards in Public Life

This motion refers to media reports about a Cabinet Member and calls for consideration of independent assurance or review, as well as reaffirming the Nolan Principles and Code of Conduct.

Standards matter.

But Labour using standards as a political weapon after its own Sandwell record is laughable.

The answer is simple: if there is a genuine complaint, use the proper process. If public confidence is affected, get independent assurance. But do not turn standards into smear theatre.

Reform should not circle the wagons, but neither should it be bullied into feeding Labour’s outrage machine.

My position: support proper process and public confidence, oppose politically selective standards games.

Line:
“Standards must be real, not just a stick Labour picks up when it is out of power.”

Item 11(g) — Maximum working temperatures

This motion calls for a review of how Sandwell manages high temperatures for indoor and outdoor staff and asks for government action on workplace heat.

I support this.

This is practical. It affects waste crews, parks staff, highways workers, care staff, housing repairs, depots, offices and schools.

Heat is a workplace hazard. Staff should not be left to sweat through bad planning while senior management discovers “wellbeing” in a PowerPoint.

My position: support, with trade union involvement, risk assessments, outdoor crew protections, schools guidance and contractor expectations.

Line:
“Heat is a workplace hazard, not a weather-based inconvenience.”

The wider message to Reform

This is the key point.

Sandwell residents voted for a Reform leadership.

They did not vote for old Tory traits in new clothing.

They did not vote for councillors to be micromanaged.
They did not vote for scrutiny to be delayed.
They did not vote for opposition councillors to be sidelined.
They did not vote for decisions to be dictated from a small circle.
They did not vote for public engagement to become an afterthought.

They voted for a clean out.

A fresh broom.

A reform of the council.

That means involving all councillors where appropriate.
It means listening to officers but not being captured by officer machinery.
It means engaging the public before decisions are made.
It means scrutiny that actually scrutinises.
It means Cabinet that can take questions.
It means admitting when things need correcting.
It means not becoming the very thing you were elected to replace.

Reform has a huge opportunity in Sandwell.

But that opportunity can be wasted very quickly if it looks like the same old habits are back: secrecy, control, thin reports, weak scrutiny, rushed decisions, managed access and residents spoken at rather than listened to.

This borough has had enough of being done to.

We need to be part of the rebuilding.

Final word

Support what is right.
Strengthen what is weak.
Challenge what is political theatre.
Demand evidence.
Demand scrutiny.
Demand public involvement.

On this agenda, my position is clear:

Oppose Labour’s smear politics on Jonathan Fox.
Support the café, but investigate the planning drift.
Strengthen the Borough of Sanctuary motion into a full pledge audit.
Support HMO controls with evidence and timelines.
Support SEND scrutiny.
Support libraries.
Support workplace heat protections.
Support standards properly, not selectively.
And above all — support scrutiny, openness and public trust.

Be Reform.
Be the clean broom.
Be the fresh air.
Be the change.
Do not become the continuator.

Because Sandwell does not need another closed shop.

It needs rebuilding.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformSandwell #RayNock #FullCouncil #Scrutiny #OverviewAndScrutiny #CabinetAccountability #PublicTrust #Governance #Transparency #LocalDemocracy #BoroughOfSanctuary #CouncilPledges #HMOs #SEND #OrchardSchool #Libraries #StandardsInPublicLife #JonathanFox #RitchieMassey #Planning #SandwellPolitics #BeTheChange #CleanBroom

Civic Honours Or The Old Mates Club? Sandwell’s Honorary Alderman Farce

 

Civic Honours Or The Old Mates Club? Sandwell’s Honorary Alderman Farce

Sandwell Council has an Extraordinary Full Council meeting at 6pm on 28 July 2026.

Only four items.

Apologies.
Declarations.
Then two nominations for Honorary Alderman.

And frankly, Items 3 and 4 should make anyone who cares about civic standards sit up and ask what on earth is going on.

Honorary Alderman status is supposed to mean something. It is supposed to recognise eminent or notable service to the borough. It should be a serious civic honour — not a retirement badge, not a political favour, not a cosy nod to old mates, and certainly not a way of polishing awkward history until it shines under the chamber lights.

Yet here we are.

Item 3 — Steve Melia

Steve Melia has been nominated by Cllr Ray Nock, supported by Cllr Bob Jones. The report cites his years of service, his time as Mayor in 2025/26, and his work around the Royal British Legion and remembrance events.

That is the council’s sanitised version.

Here is the bit the report does not properly grapple with.

Steve Melia pleaded guilty to assault at Dudley Magistrates’ Court in February 2022. He was conditionally discharged for 12 months and ordered to pay costs and compensation. LocalGov reported that he assaulted a blogger by knocking a phone from his hands. (LocalGov)

The Express & Star reported that the incident involved blogger Julian Saunders, known as the Sandwell Skidder, and took place outside Sandwell Council House in Oldbury. (Express & Star)

So let us spell this out.

Sandwell councillors are being asked to confer Honorary Alderman status on a man convicted of assaulting a member of the public outside the very building where they now want to honour him.

You could not make it up.

The Mayoralty was already sullied, in my view, when Melia was elevated to that office despite this background. Now the council is being asked to go one better and hand him another civic title.

No.

Absolutely not.

Long service is not the same as honour.

Sitting in the chamber for years does not wipe away conduct that damaged public confidence. Remembrance work may be worthy, but it does not erase the obvious question: should someone with that public record be handed one of Sandwell’s civic honours?

The report says there are no direct risk implications.

Really?

No reputational risk?
No public confidence risk?
No civic standards risk?
No risk in telling residents that assaulting a member of the public outside Council House can be followed, a few years later, by ceremonial honour inside Council House?

This is not a risk assessment. It is civic whitewash.

If Honorary Alderman status means anything, this nomination should be rejected.

Not deferred.
Not “noted”.
Not nodded through with a few warm speeches and civic biscuits.

Rejected.

Item 4 — Robert White

Robert White has been nominated by Cllr Ray Nock, supported by Cllr Gary Dale. The report says he served as a councillor for 16 years and points to a 1992 motion on disability and equal opportunities.

Fine. That may be a worthy piece of history.

But where is the evidence pack?

Where is the original motion?
Where is the explanation of what changed because of it?
Where is the impact assessment?
Where is the comparison with other former councillors?
Why now?
Why this nominee?
Why this moment?

The report gives councillors a few lines and expects them to confer a civic honour.

That is not scrutiny. That is a polite little conveyor belt.

There is also a further issue. If, as I understand locally, Robert White is a personal friend of Leader Ray Nock, then that relationship should be declared openly before the vote.

This is not just about whether the law technically requires it.

It is about public confidence.

If the Leader is nominating a personal friend for Honorary Alderman status, residents should be told before councillors vote — not left to work it out afterwards.

Honorary Alderman should not become Sandwell’s old mates club.

There are former councillors across the borough who have given years of service, ward work, community graft, casework, civic duty and quiet commitment without needing a political sponsor to pull their name out of the drawer.

So again: why Robert White, why now, and who else was considered?

The bigger problem

Both reports are thin.

No proper background documents.
No public consultation.
No real risk assessment.
No fuller evidence.
No comparative criteria.
No explanation of who was considered and who was not.

Just a couple of nominations, a few civic paragraphs, and the usual Sandwell assumption that councillors should nod along.

That is exactly how honours get cheapened.

Honorary Alderman status should be reserved for people whose service brings honour to Sandwell.

It should not be used for old mates.

And it certainly should not be used for a man convicted of assaulting a member of the public outside the very chamber where he is now being lined up for applause.

Sandwell Council needs to decide what its civic honours are worth.

Because if this goes through, the message is grim:

Serve long enough.
Know the right people.
Ride out the scandal.
Wait for the chain to be polished.
Collect your honour.

No thanks.

Do not sully the role of Honorary Alderman.

Reject Steve Melia.

Defer Robert White until there is a proper evidence pack and any personal association with the Leader is declared.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SteveMelia #RobertWhite #HonoraryAlderman #RayNock #Governance #CivicHonours #PublicConfidence #StandardsInPublicLife #LocalGovernment #SandwellPolitics

 

Sandwell’s Tenant Engagement Strategy: Nice Words, Glossy Graphics — Now Where Are The Receipts?

Sandwell Council has produced its new Tenant Engagement Strategy 2025, covering April 2026 to March 2029.

Now, before anyone starts clapping like a seal at feeding time, let’s be fair.

The document says a lot of the right things.

Tenant voice.
Transparency.
Accountability.
Performance indicators.
Feedback loops.
“What you told us – What we did.”
Tenant scrutiny.
Tenant Auditor Group.
Tenants and Residents Associations.
SCIPS.
A “Tenant Approved” stamp.

All very warm. All very lovely. All very Sandwell.

But the question for tenants, leaseholders, TRAs and community groups is not whether the strategy looks good in a PDF.

The question is much simpler:

Will it change anything?

Because tenants have had strategies before. They have had consultations before. They have had meetings before. They have had “engagement” before.

What they have not always had is clear proof that when they raise issues, Sandwell Council listens, acts, reports back, and changes the service.

That is the test.

What the strategy says

Sandwell Council says it wants tenants to be at the heart of housing services. It says the key goals are to strengthen tenant voice, improve communication and transparency, make it easier to get involved, promote accountability through regular feedback and performance monitoring, and build trust between tenants and the Council.

The strategy says Sandwell has 27,781 council homes, including flats, houses, bungalows and maisonettes.

That is a huge housing service. So tenant engagement is not some fluffy add-on. It should be a core part of how the Council runs housing.

The strategy also says it was co-produced by a task and finish group of nine tenants, SCIPS, and Sandwell Housing team members.

Again, fine.

But co-produced by nine tenants is not the same as owned by nearly 28,000 households.

The big question is how this strategy now reaches the tenants who are not already in the room, not already in a TRA, not already on a panel, not already known to officers, and not already confident enough to challenge.

Sandwell admits it has work to do

To its credit, the strategy does admit where the Council needs to improve.

It says Sandwell needs to rebuild trust with tenants, provide timely and accurate feedback to tenant concerns, act promptly on lessons learned and viable tenant recommendations, raise awareness of tenant involvement, and reach underrepresented communities.

That matters.

Because buried beneath the polite language is the real issue:

tenants do not always trust the Council to act.

And frankly, who can blame them?

Repairs problems.
Complaint delays.
Damp and mould concerns.
Digital systems that do not always work for real people.
People not getting proper updates.
Tenants raising issues and then wondering where they disappeared to.

The Equality Impact Assessment says consultation feedback showed support for the strategy, but also scepticism about whether commitments would be kept, with people citing past failures to act on tenant input and unresolved repairs.

There it is in black and white.

Not from me.
Not from some bloke moaning on Facebook.
From the Council’s own paperwork.

Tenants are saying: “We have heard the promises. Now show us delivery.”

The “Tenant Approved” stamp — useful or rubber stamp?

One interesting bit is the proposed “Tenant Approved” stamp.

The strategy says this should only be used once tenants have had the opportunity to review, shape and agree the final version of a document.

That sounds good.

But there needs to be a proper process.

Who decides something is Tenant Approved?
How many tenants must be involved?
Which tenants?
From which areas?
Are dissenting views recorded?
Can a small familiar group approve something on behalf of everyone?
Can the Council use the stamp like a shiny badge to say “tenants approved this” when many tenants have never even heard of it?

Because if “Tenant Approved” just means “a few people in the system saw it and nobody threw a chair”, that is not tenant approval.

That is a rubber stamp with a nicer font.

SCIPS: important role, but independence must be clear

SCIPS is clearly part of the model. The strategy says TRA and community groups are delivered by SCIPS.

The strategy also includes a measure for annual satisfaction with the service provided by SCIPS, and describes SCIPS as commissioned by the Council to support new and existing Tenants and Residents Associations and community members.

Now, SCIPS may do good work. The evidence from meetings, newsletters and feedback suggests staff are active, helpful and well regarded.

But let’s not pretend there is no issue here.

SCIPS is often described as independent or as a critical friend. Yet it is also commissioned and funded by Sandwell Council to deliver part of the tenant engagement system.

That is not automatically wrong. But it does need sunlight.

If SCIPS is there to support tenants and challenge the Council, then tenants should be able to see:

what SCIPS challenged;
what Sandwell Council said in response;
what changed;
what did not change;
and what is still outstanding.

A proper annual “What We Challenged, What Changed” report would be a good start.

Because tenant engagement should not just be a noticeboard. It should be a lever.

TRAs need to use this strategy

For Tenants and Residents Associations, this document is useful because it gives you language to hold the Council to.

The strategy says the Council will publish clear service standards and performance indicators, require contractors and partners to support tenant engagement, offer meaningful engagement opportunities, be open to feedback, challenge and scrutiny, act on tenant feedback, and report back on outcomes.

So TRAs should not be shy.

Ask for the service standards.
Ask for the performance indicators.
Ask for the repairs figures.
Ask for complaint data.
Ask what has changed after your meetings.
Ask where your issues are recorded.
Ask who owns the action.
Ask when you will get an answer.

If several TRAs are raising the same issues, that is not “anecdotal”. That is a pattern.

And patterns should be recorded, escalated and tracked.

Where are the action plan and KPIs?

The strategy says an annual action plan created in partnership with tenants will support delivery. It says the key drivers will include participation rates, satisfaction scores and the diversity of tenants and leaseholders engaged.

That sounds promising.

So where is it?

Where is the action plan?
Who helped write it?
What are the actions?
Who owns them?
What are the deadlines?
What are the KPIs?
When will the first progress report be published?
Where will tenants see it?

The strategy says information will be shared regularly on the Tenant Engagement webpage, in the bi-monthly e-bulletin, and with SCIPS members. It also says performance will be reviewed quarterly by the Cabinet Member for Housing and the Tenant and Leaseholder Scrutiny Group, and also by the Safer Neighbourhoods and Active Communities Board.

Good.

Then publish it.

Not hidden in a meeting pack nobody sees.
Not buried in ModernGov like lost treasure.
Not summarised into corporate porridge.

Publish a simple tracker:

Issue raised.
Who raised it.
What the Council said.
Action agreed.
Owner.
Deadline.
Status.
Completed or not completed.
What changed.

That is accountability. Everything else is decoration.

Tenant panels and scrutiny groups

The strategy lists plenty of tenant engagement routes:

Tenant and Leaseholder Scrutiny Group.
Tenant Audit Group.
Resident Building Safety Forum.
Youth involvement.
Task and Finish Groups.
Consultations.
Communication Group.
Workshops.
Tenants Complaints Panel.
Annual Tenant and Leaseholder Conference.
TRA and community groups through SCIPS.

Again, good on paper.

But the public needs to know what these groups are doing.

Where are the Tenant Auditor Group reports?
Where are the recommendations?
Where are the Council responses?
Where are the minutes?
Where is the work programme?
How are tenants selected?
How are vacancies advertised?
How are dissenting views recorded?

If the Tenant Auditor Group has done work on repairs, damp and mould, complaints, ASB or choice-based lettings, then tenants should be able to read the reports.

Not just a summary.
Not just “tenants were involved”.
The actual report, with personal information redacted where necessary.

Otherwise we are back in the Sandwell fog machine.

Lots of engagement.
Lots of groups.
Lots of arrows on diagrams.
Not enough daylight.

Equality Impact Assessment: a few alarm bells

The Equality Impact Assessment says the strategy has positive impacts for various groups, including disabled tenants, older and younger tenants, carers, low-income tenants, minority communities, veterans, refugees and neurodivergent tenants.

It talks about reasonable adjustments, accessible venues, alternative formats, hybrid participation, travel expenses, translation and outreach. Again, good.

But then the EqIA says there are no adverse impacts requiring mitigation.

Really?

The same EqIA says consultation feedback raised digital exclusion, paper communication, trust concerns, unresolved repairs, underrepresented communities and accessibility issues.

Those are not imaginary risks. They are real barriers.

So why is the mitigation section effectively “N/A”?

If tenants struggle online, that is an access issue.
If people need paper communication, that is an access issue.
If disabled tenants cannot attend venues or meetings, that is an access issue.
If meetings are at times carers or working tenants cannot attend, that is an access issue.
If underrepresented communities are not reached, that is an access issue.

The Council cannot just say “inclusive” and expect the job to be done.

The big missing link: repairs and complaints

Tenant engagement cannot be separated from repairs and complaints.

If tenants are waiting months for repairs, if damp and mould cases are not sorted, if appointments are missed, if complaints are delayed, then all the engagement language in the world will not rebuild trust.

The strategy includes satisfaction that the landlord listens to tenants, keeps tenants informed, treats tenants fairly, handles complaints properly and contributes positively to neighbourhoods.

So repairs and complaints must be central to this strategy.

TRAs should be asking for regular figures on:

open repairs;
overdue repairs;
missed appointments;
first-time fix rate;
damp and mould cases;
complaints;
complaints upheld;
complaint response times;
contractor performance;
tenant satisfaction after repairs.

Not once a year. Regularly.

Because if the Council can produce performance reports for regulators and senior managers, it can produce a tenant-friendly version for the people living with the service.

What TRAs and tenants should ask now

Here are the questions I would be asking:

1. Where is the Tenant Engagement Strategy action plan?

2. Who helped write it?

3. What are the KPIs?

4. Where is the “What you told us – What we did” tracker?

5. Where are the Tenant Auditor Group reports and Council responses?

6. How does the “Tenant Approved” stamp work?

7. How many tenants must be involved before something is called Tenant Approved?

8. How will the Council reach tenants who are not online, not in TRAs and not already involved?

9. Will key meetings be hybrid for disabled tenants, carers and people who cannot attend in person?

10. What repairs and complaints data will be reported to tenants?

11. How will SCIPS show what it challenged and what changed?

12. When will tenants see the first public progress report?

Final thought

The Tenant Engagement Strategy is not useless. Far from it.

It contains enough promises to be useful.

But tenants, TRAs, SCIPS members and councillors now need to use it as a measuring stick.

When the Council says it will be transparent — ask for the dashboard.
When it says tenants will influence decisions — ask which decisions changed.
When it says “Tenant Approved” — ask who approved it.
When it says “What you told us – What we did” — ask where it is published.
When it says performance will be monitored — ask for the KPIs.
When it says it will rebuild trust — ask how, by when, and who is accountable.

Because Sandwell does not need another glossy document quietly filed away after the launch photos are taken.

It needs tenants with information, TRAs with evidence, SCIPS with teeth, councillors asking proper questions, and a Council that understands engagement is not the same as accountability.

Tenant engagement should not be a talking shop.

It should be tenants saying:

We raised it.
You recorded it.
You acted on it.
You told us what changed.
And if you did not act, you explained why.

That is the standard Sandwell Council has now set for itself.

Now let’s see if it can meet it.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #TenantEngagement #TenantVoice #CouncilHousing #HousingRepairs #TenantRights #TenantScrutiny #TenantsAndResidentsAssociations #TRAs #SCIPS #SandwellCIPS #TenantAuditorGroup #TenantAndLeaseholderScrutiny #HousingAccountability #RepairsAndComplaints #DampAndMould #CouncilTransparency #WhatYouToldUsWhatWeDid #TenantApproved #PublicAccountability #LocalGovernment #WestBromwich #Wednesbury #Oldbury #Smethwick #Tipton #RowleyRegis

 

Let’s Dance Again CIO: The Questions Haven’t Gone Away – They’ve Got Bigger

There comes a point when silence stops looking dignified and starts looking like avoidance.

That point was passed some time ago with Let’s Dance Again CIO.

I first became involved because people approached me with concerns about exclusions, governance, treatment of older people, safeguarding, data handling and finances.

Since then I have done what any half-decent citizen journalist should do.

I checked records.

I asked questions.

I used Freedom of Information.

I wrote directly to the trustees.

I submitted a Subject Access Request.

And I kept a record.

What I have not done is ask for Let’s Dance Again to close.

I have not asked for coffee mornings to stop.

I have not asked for shows, trips, dancing, bingo or social activities to end.

Quite the opposite.

If a charity is providing something valuable for older people, brilliant.

But that does not give it a free pass on governance.

And it certainly does not mean trustees can simply ignore reasonable questions because they don’t like who is asking them.

The trustees still have questions to answer

The trustees currently identified are:

Elaine Costigan
Debora Dawn Price
Janet Clarke

They are the people legally responsible for the charity.

Not supporters.

Not friends.

Not family members.

Not enthusiastic volunteers.

And not David Laine.

The trustees have now been asked repeatedly about finances, conflicts of interest, exclusions, complaints, safeguarding, data protection and public conduct.

Those questions remain substantially unanswered.

That is the central fact in all of this.

Let’s talk about the accounts

This is becoming one of the biggest red flags.

According to the charity’s reported figures:

Year ending 31 March 2024

Income: around £14,300
Expenditure: around £11,710
Government grants: around £12,392

Year ending 31 March 2025

Income: around £19,150
Expenditure: around £17,520

Now stop there for a moment.

Just look at those numbers.

Then think about the visible activities associated with the group:

coffee mornings,

shows,

entertainment,

trips,

exercise sessions,

craft sessions,

IT sessions,

special events,

raffles,

collections,

donations,

bingo,

refreshments,

and plenty of cash changing hands.

Sandwell Council’s own FOI disclosures confirm extensive and repeated use of Wednesbury Town Hall.

So the obvious question is this:

How do annual income figures of roughly £14,300 and £19,150 reconcile with that level of activity?

I am not saying I have proved fraud.

I haven’t.

But I am saying the figures look extraordinary.

And the fact that the two years are also relatively similar despite the scale and continuity of activity makes the whole thing even more worthy of scrutiny.

Someone needs to explain it.

Properly.

Not with slogans.

Not with Facebook posts.

Not with “everybody is happy”.

With records.

Cash, bingo, raffles and collections

Cash handling deserves particular attention.

Who takes the money?

Who counts it?

Is there dual counting?

Are totals recorded?

How often is it banked?

How are raffles accounted for?

How are donations recorded?

How are collections reconciled?

And what about bingo?

Where fixed prize amounts are advertised, the amount taken in will not necessarily equal the amount paid out.

So where is the surplus recorded?

How much was taken?

How much was paid out?

Who handled it?

Where does it appear in the charity’s accounts?

Those are not outrageous questions.

They are basic financial-control questions.

USP Steels – still no answer

Then we have USP Steels Ltd.

The company is understood to be connected to the Chair’s son.

The charity publicly referred to the company supporting LDA.

Fine.

But that immediately raises straightforward conflict-of-interest questions.

What support was given?

What was it worth?

Was it cash, goods, services or sponsorship?

What does the company receive in return?

Branding?

Promotion?

Access?

Association with the charity?

Association with events held in Wednesbury Town Hall?

Was the family relationship declared?

Was it minuted?

Did the Chair withdraw from any decision?

Was Sandwell Council aware of any commercial branding connected to activities in its building?

Still waiting.

Then there is the Subject Access Request

On 23 February 2026, I submitted a formal Subject Access Request.

I asked for personal data held about me across the charity’s emails, Facebook communications, messages, documents, notes and communications with third parties.

I chased it.

And chased it again.

And again.

No substantive response.

No lawful extension.

No request for clarification.

No identity-verification request.

Nothing.

That is now a data-protection issue in its own right.

But it also tells you something wider about governance.

A charity cannot bang on about rules, law and doing everything properly while apparently ignoring a formal statutory request for months.

That simply does not wash.

And then there is David Laine

Now we get to one of the strangest parts of this whole saga.

David Laine is not a trustee.

Yet for months he has repeatedly inserted himself into governance matters that legally belong to the trustees.

We have seen people called liars.

We have seen accusations of vendettas.

We have seen threatening and confrontational language.

We have seen references to solicitors, police, evidence, dirt and “more to come”.

We have seen third-party venues dragged into the argument.

We have even recently seen implication that critics may have been responsible for damaged display banners.

Perhaps someone might first have considered the rather less dramatic explanation:

high winds.

The trustees were repeatedly warned about this conduct.

They were asked whether Mr Laine was authorised to speak on their behalf.

They were asked whether they endorsed his conduct.

They were asked what steps they had taken to protect the charity’s reputation.

Still waiting.

And at one point Chair Elaine Costigan had publicly reacted positively to and shared material from him.

So this stopped being dismissible as “just one bloke on Facebook” a long time ago.

A charity cannot outsource accountability

That is the point.

Trustees cannot remain silent while somebody else does the attacking.

They cannot let a non-trustee become the public enforcer and then pretend none of it has anything to do with charity governance.

Responsibility remains with the trustees.

Always.

What did the Sandwell Council FOI tell us?

Quite a lot.

It confirmed:

• extensive use of Wednesbury Town Hall;

• a period of free use for community groups;

• a real council funding relationship;

• council awareness of complaints;

• no conflict-of-interest records said to be held relating to LDA trustees;

• and, remarkably, no policies, criteria or officer guidance governing community use, free use or preferential access during the relevant period.

Read that again.

A public building.

Repeated use.

Public funding.

Free use.

And apparently no written framework governing how free or preferential access was decided.

That ought to concern anyone interested in public governance.

A later Sandwell premises framework introduced far more structured arrangements.

Which rather raises the question:

Why wasn’t that structure there before?

This is about standards

The latest email to the trustees put the issue very simply.

A charity serving older and potentially vulnerable people should be run with:

candour
honesty
integrity
openness
accountability
leadership

And frankly, the Nolan Principles are a pretty good benchmark too:

Selflessness.

Integrity.

Objectivity.

Accountability.

Openness.

Honesty.

Leadership.

Those principles should not just sit in government documents.

They are sensible standards for anyone entrusted with money, beneficiaries and public confidence.

So where are we now?

The questions remain.

The accounts still need explaining.

The cash-handling controls still need explaining.

The bingo income still needs explaining.

The USP Steels relationship still needs explaining.

The exclusions still need explaining.

The SAR still needs answering.

David Laine’s role still needs explaining.

The trustees’ failure to intervene still needs explaining.

And Sandwell Council still has questions to answer about how all of this was overseen within a public building.

This is no longer a case of a few disgruntled people moaning.

There is now a substantial documentary record.

There are FOI disclosures.

There are emails.

There are public posts.

There are witness accounts.

And there is a Master Foundation Document pulling the whole thing together.

The bottom line

If everything is proper, transparent and above board, then answer the questions.

Produce the records.

Reconcile the figures.

Explain the conflicts.

Show the controls.

Answer the SAR.

And let the trustees speak for themselves.

Because every month that passes with more silence and more noise from everyone except the people actually responsible makes the governance problem look worse, not better.

That isn’t persecution.

That isn’t hate.

That isn’t a vendetta.

That is accountability.

#LetsDanceAgain #Wednesbury #CharityGovernance #TrusteeAccountability #FinancialTransparency #WednesburyTownHall #SandwellCouncil #GDPR #Safeguarding #PublicInterest #Accountability