Smethwick Pride in Place: The Grants Are Moving — But Who Is Actually in Charge?
LONG READ — but shorter than the last one. Kettle still recommended.
The latest Smethwick Partnership Board papers for 11 September 2026 do not settle the governance questions around Pride in Place.
They sharpen them.
And one point now matters above all others:
the Board itself has asked Government to confirm whether the Funding Subgroup arrangements are compliant.
That is now part of the official public record.
So this is no longer simply a question being raised from outside.
The Board itself wants an answer.
The £20 million question
Smethwick Pride in Place is a ten-year programme worth up to £20 million.
It is supposed to be community-led.
Local people shape priorities.
Local communities influence investment.
Fine.
But eventually someone has to make the actual funding decision.
And that is where things have become rather muddled.
At the 20 August meeting, Councillor Ray Nock asked for assurance that the governance arrangements were constitutionally compliant.
Officers said legal officers had previously reviewed the process.
But the Board still agreed a formal action:
R Rahim to seek confirmation from MHCLG regarding the governance and constitutional arrangements relating to delegated authority to the Funding Subgroup.
That is significant.
Because while this question remains unanswered, the Funding Subgroup is not merely discussing applications.
It is now awarding grants.
The Subgroup is making the decisions
The 11 September agenda contains an item titled:
“Pride in Place Projects update”
Its purpose is:
“To present the decisions made by the Subgroup to award grant funding to project applicants.”
That is pretty clear.
The decisions have been made by the Subgroup.
The full details are in a restricted report.
Now, protecting genuinely confidential applicant information is perfectly reasonable.
But the public should still ultimately be able to see:
who received funding;
how much;
what for;
who made the decision;
what conflicts were declared;
what conditions were attached;
why the project was approved.
Public money does not stop being public money because some of the paperwork is sensitive.
The awkward bit: the Board has asked MHCLG to confirm the arrangement
This is the central issue.
The Board has already delegated the current £500,000 grant programme to the Funding Subgroup.
The August minutes say the Board retains overall accountability, while the Subgroup undertakes the detailed operational work.
But Councillor Nock still wanted constitutional assurance.
And the Board still felt it necessary to ask MHCLG for confirmation.
That leaves a very simple question for 11 September:
Has MHCLG replied?
If yes, publish the answer.
If MHCLG says the arrangement is fine, excellent.
If it recommends changes, make them.
Either way, residents should not have to guess.
“We’ve discussed this before” is not quite an answer
The Subgroup Chair reportedly suggested that legal and governance challenges should be discussed outside the meeting because the issue had already been discussed several times.
I understand the frustration.
Governance discussions can make watching paint dry feel like extreme sport.
But repeatedly discussing a question does not resolve it.
If the answer is still unclear enough for the Board to seek Government confirmation, then the issue remains live.
Simple as that.
The boundary issue is now clearer too
The Board was told that some unsuccessful organisations were disappointed because they had a history of working in Smethwick but were not progressed because their base was outside Smethwick.
The minutes then record:
31 Expressions of Interest;
14 invited to full application;
17 not invited;
those 17 met the project objectives, but their applicant base was outside the Smethwick boundary.
That is an important distinction.
These were not necessarily bad projects.
They were excluded because of location.
That may be a legitimate local policy choice.
But it should be explained properly.
If the purpose is to strengthen organisations physically based in Smethwick, say so.
If the purpose is primarily to benefit Smethwick residents, then it is fair to ask whether organisational postcode should outweigh proven local delivery.
The good news is that officers now accept the process should be reviewed after the first round.
That is sensible.
At least the Board is becoming more strategic
There is some welcome progress.
Members agreed that future grant decisions should consider more than basic eligibility.
They want to look at:
local need;
value for money;
sustainability;
legacy;
additionality;
geographical spread;
balance across themes and groups.
Good.
Because a £20 million programme should not become a race to see who submits the best paperwork first.
The strongest organisations should not automatically become the loudest voices in the funding process.
Revenue is already oversubscribed
By 20 August, five full applications had been received from the 14 organisations invited forward, with another nine EOIs also in the pipeline.
The Board was told that this had already caused the revenue budget to become oversubscribed.
That makes transparency more important, not less.
When there is enough money for everybody, decisions are easy.
When there isn't, people need to understand:
why one project was funded and another wasn't.
If that explanation cannot be followed from the public record, confidence will inevitably suffer.
Direct commissions: some numbers at last
We finally have some useful figures.
The August minutes record:
£14,000 for benches at Lightwoods Park and Victoria Park;
£8,000 for seven benches in Smethwick High Street;
more than £35,000 expected overall on bench schemes and related public-realm improvements.
Excellent.
Actual numbers.
More of this please.
But why are direct commissions still mainly being handled through verbal updates?
A one-page table would do:
project — cost — supplier — procurement route — status.
No mystery.
No 80-page report.
Just a basic public audit trail.
CCTV: evidence first, spending second
The Board also discussed possible CCTV investment.
Members raised concerns about coverage in Smethwick, but instead of immediately reaching for the Pride in Place cheque book they asked for:
existing and planned provision;
costs;
monitoring arrangements;
hotspot data.
That is exactly right.
Evidence first.
Spend second.
A principle worth framing and hanging in every council office.
Another important point: Pride in Place must not replace normal Council spending
The Board also agreed that Pride in Place funding should be additional and should not substitute for statutory Council responsibilities.
That is vital.
This money should not become a convenient replacement pot for work the Council should already be doing.
Otherwise £20 million could disappear into:
"We were going to do that anyway, but now somebody else is paying."
The Board deserves credit for drawing that line.
Now it needs watching.
Youth engagement: a real improvement
The September papers show genuine progress on involving young people.
The new plan includes:
school engagement;
KS2 and KS3 lesson materials;
a youth survey;
ward-based workshops;
SHAPE Forum involvement;
possible Youth Forum representatives at Board meetings;
participation up to age 25 for young people with SEND.
The target is also specific:
375 survey responses would provide a 95% confidence rating.
That is much better than asking six young people a question and announcing that "young people told us..."
This is exactly the sort of engagement that should continue throughout the programme.
But the youth material creates another small irony
Young people are asked:
“If you were making the decisions, how would you spend the £20 million?”
And the lesson material explains that the Smethwick Partnership Board oversees the programme.
Fair enough.
But that makes it even more important that the public understands the relationship between the Partnership Board and the Funding Subgroup.
If the Subgroup is making the ordinary grant decisions under delegated authority, explain that clearly.
Don't make residents — or schoolchildren — require a crash course in constitutional delegation to understand who does what.
Grove Lane is the other major issue
Away from Pride in Place, the Partnership Board is still overseeing the Towns Fund programme.
And Grove Lane remains a substantial risk.
The Board was told:
the Council is pursuing a CPO;
a public inquiry is due in October;
the landowner is challenging the approach and valuation;
a preferred developer has been appointed by the landowner;
a CPO decision is expected by January 2027;
approximately £4.1 million remains allocated to the project.
The Board has now sensibly agreed to start contingency planning and speak to MHCLG and WMCA about alternatives if Grove Lane cannot proceed.
Good.
Because £4.1 million is rather a lot to leave sitting under "we'll see how January goes."
And some actions are still ageing nicely
The action log still contains items from February marked:
awaiting data;
awaiting report.
And a business-case action from April 2025 remains outstanding.
At some point, "awaiting data" stops being an update and becomes a lifestyle choice.
These need deadlines.
So where does this leave things?
The picture is mixed.
There are positives:
better youth engagement;
more strategic grant thinking;
recognition of geographical balance;
evidence-based CCTV discussion;
clearer direct-commission figures;
proper acknowledgement that Pride in Place should be additional;
contingency planning on Grove Lane.
But the central governance issue remains unresolved.
And now it is officially unresolved.
The Board itself has asked MHCLG to confirm the delegated Funding Subgroup arrangements.
Meanwhile, that Subgroup is already making grant award decisions.
So the first question on 11 September should be:
Has MHCLG responded?
And if so:
publish it.
The questions I would ask now
Has MHCLG confirmed the delegated Funding Subgroup arrangements?
Will the response be published?
What is the precise authority under which the Subgroup awards grants?
Who made the latest grant decisions and what conflicts were declared?
When will successful projects and award values be published?
What changes will be made after concerns from organisations excluded because they were based outside Smethwick?
How much of the revenue pot is now committed or oversubscribed?
Why are direct commissions still largely reported verbally?
How will geographical balance across Smethwick be protected?
What is the contingency plan for the £4.1 million Grove Lane allocation?
Ten questions.
No conspiracy.
No theatrics.
Just public money and public accountability.
Final thought
Pride in Place could still be an excellent programme for Smethwick.
There are clearly people around the table trying to improve it.
But the first year is setting the precedent for the next nine.
The simplest way to build trust is also the least glamorous:
publish the delegation, publish the MHCLG response, publish the decisions, publish the conflicts and publish the spending.
Make the governance boring.
Because once residents can clearly see:
who decided, why they decided, what it cost and what changed,
we can all spend less time playing Where's Wally? — Governance Edition and more time judging whether Pride in Place is actually making Smethwick better.
Pride in Place needs Pride in Process too.
#Smethwick #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SmethwickPartnershipBoard #PrideInPlace #CommunityFunding #CommunityGrants #PublicMoney #FundingSubgroup #Transparency #Accountability #CouncilScrutiny #LocalDemocracy #CommunityEngagement #YouthEngagement #Regeneration #TownsFund #GroveLane #FollowTheMoney #PrideInProcess
No comments:
Post a Comment