Friar Park – Don’t Take My Word For It. Read What They Were Saying Behind Closed Doors

Friar Park – Don’t Take My Word For It. Read What They Were Saying Behind Closed Doors

For months, residents asking questions about Friar Park Urban Village have been told to wait.

Wait for the planning application.

Wait for consultation.

Wait for the evidence.

Wait for the proper process.

Well, the latest documents finally released by the West Midlands Combined Authority show that plenty of people involved in promoting Friar Park were doing anything but waiting.

They were lobbying.

They were escalating.

They were approaching Government.

They were approaching the Environment Agency.

They were discussing tens of millions of pounds.

They were trying to overcome regulatory obstacles.

They were arguing about how much social housing should be delivered.

And, in one wonderfully revealing internal email, they were quite literally talking about:

“working the different angles.”

So this time I am not going to paraphrase the important bits.

I am going to show you what they actually said.

Then you can make your own mind up.

Nearly Six Months – And We Still Only Have Part One

First, the transparency.

I submitted the refined Environmental Information request to WMCA on 12 April 2026.

WMCA responded on 9 October 2026.

Nearly six months.

And after waiting nearly six months, the first thing WMCA tells us is:

“Please note that we are responding to your request in stages, and this is our first staged response.”

Read that carefully.

Nearly six months for the first staged response.

The request also sought funding agreements, heads of terms, grant conditions, project board papers, delivery papers, remediation funding records, internal emails, risk summaries, programme updates and governance records.

We still don't have all of that.

So what follows is not the whole story.

It is the first instalment.

And what an instalment it is.

“Urgent Help to Unblock” Friar Park

A WMCA briefing prepared for a meeting with the Environment Agency on 19 February 2025 contains this under its key lines:

“We have a specific ask for urgent help to unblock issues with a potential 630 home development site called Friar Park in Sandwell.”

Not “understand”.

Not “review”.

Not “consider”.

Unblock.

The briefing then explains the position in considerably more detail:

“Friar Park in Sandwell is an example of the latter. A disused sewage farm which had been tipped with contaminated materials. It was acquired by the WMCA in 2019. Initial dialogue with the EA was said to be positive but further discussions have been protracted.

Friar Park has been master planned for 630 homes and a remediation strategy has been devised. Together with the adjacent landowner, Sandwell Council, the WMCA is in the final stages of procuring a development partner. Both public bodies have committed a combined c.£30m of grant funds to deliver the project and provide much needed homes.”

There we have it.

Former sewage farm.

Contaminated materials.

630-home masterplan.

Developer procurement.

Approximately £30 million of public grant.

And this was all being discussed before the eventual main residential planning application.

Yet residents asking what hundreds of additional homes mean for schools, SEND, traffic, air quality and infrastructure are apparently supposed to wait for planning.

Interesting.

Then Comes the £58 Million Bombshell

The same briefing continues:

“The remediation strategy for the site includes removal of contaminated waste from its location in the centre of the site and using this to form a sound bund along a railway track running along one boundary. Disposal off site adds an additional £58m to the scheme and would mean development could never take place.

The EA accepts the remediation solution from a technical viewpoint, presumably happy with the hazard risk. However, to reposition the waste, a Waste Recovery Permit is needed.

All requirements of the Waste Recovery Permit can be met except the ‘substitution test’. This test requires landowners to be able to deliver the same scheme even if the waste was not available to them. This test does not appear designed for, nor appropriate, in this scenario involving heavy public grant to make it happen. Officials seeking to apply this test are creating a ‘catch 22’ style problem.

The WMCA is working through consultants, but with seemingly endless new information to provide and no sign of an answer, we need a very senior lead to take a view on the evidence and consider whether the test should be applied or can be met in other ways.”

That is not residents speculating.

That is the WMCA briefing.

And the £58 million figure is extraordinary.

According to WMCA, taking the material off-site would add £58 million and mean the development “could never take place”.

So the preferred remediation route was not some academic technical choice with little financial consequence.

It was central to whether the scheme was viable.

That does not prove the proposed solution is unsafe.

The briefing itself records WMCA's view that the Environment Agency accepted the technical remediation solution.

But when one regulatory issue potentially separates a viable scheme from another £58 million of cost, robust independent regulation matters enormously.

Which makes what happened next even more interesting.

“Working the Different Angles”

On 29 January 2025, an email from WMCA's Chief Executive's Office discussed exactly how the Friar Park problem was being escalated politically.

This is what it said:

“Thanks v much for this. Ian alerted us to some of the issues around Friar Park last week – it has really piqued the political team's interest given HMG's current focus on regulators' role in unblocking growth.

Coincidentally we've had two opportunities to informally flag this with HMG in the past week – Richard was down at Downing Street last week with their Director of Local Government, and we were also asked by HMT for contributions to a commission on planning issues.

In both cases only high-level detail has been shared – and is more about getting the ‘centre’ to nudge Depts/EA towards meeting rather than resolving the problem there and then.

We'd definitely be happy to still adopt the more formal route of writing to MHCLG jointly with Cllr Hughes if that helps from your side – doesn't hurt to keep working the different angles!

Richard is also due to be having an introductory meeting with the Chair of the Environment Agency in a few weeks time, where he plans to raise this issue.”

There it is in black and white.

Downing Street.

HM Treasury.

MHCLG.

Environment Agency Chair.

And:

“doesn't hurt to keep working the different angles!”

You almost have to admire the energy.

When the project needed unblocking, doors were being knocked on everywhere.

Government.

Treasury.

Mayor.

Regulator.

Departments.

Different angles indeed.

Meanwhile, residents asking questions about whether the local school system or SEND provision can cope were being pointed towards the eventual planning consultation.

Apparently we hadn't discovered the right angle.

“The Correct Message”

There is another revealing little exchange.

A Sandwell officer asked WMCA for copies of correspondence about the escalation of the Environment Agency issue.

The officer explained:

“I need to brief my Cabinet Member around the approach being taken and the decision to not jointly approach the Deputy PM – the MP is also expecting an escalation and will need to advise how the matter is now being approached.

Also, how will progress be monitored, who is the Mayor's office reporting back to within the WMCA and how will this be relayed to the JV Board and the project team? Do we have any indication of timescales?”

The WMCA response included this:

“Sam Maybee in the Mayors Office is handling this and I think its easiest if he provides this and also any update to your Councillors should be reassuring and the correct message from that office.”

Perhaps that simply means an accurate, coordinated briefing.

But the wording is worth noting.

“reassuring and the correct message.”

Personally, I prefer the unvarnished documents.

Residents can decide for themselves whether they find them reassuring.

Antonia Bance Was Very Much Involved

Now we come to the local MP.

Antonia Bance has repeatedly told us that environmental, infrastructure and associated concerns should be addressed through the planning process.

Eventually, after repeated questions, she told us she had:

“nothing further to add.”

But the newly disclosed documents reveal something rather different about how willing she was to intervene before planning when the purpose was moving Friar Park forward.

On 3 February 2025, Bance wrote directly to Emma Hardy MP, Minister for Water and Flooding.

Her letter was copied to the Housing Minister, West Midlands Mayor and senior Sandwell figures.

She wrote:

“The brownfield Friar Park site in my constituency will, once remediated, provide more than 600 badly-needed new homes for local people.

We are, however, coming up against a barrier to the remediation with the Environment Agency.”

She then explained her understanding of the regulatory problem and set out the tests involved.

Her conclusion is particularly revealing:

“This site is does not meet these requirements. There is no financial benefit in using clean fill on this site; there is no resource in place to use clean material; and there is no obligation to complete the works proposed.

So, despite the multiple benefits that this scheme would deliver, the fact we are seeking to minimise the waste taken offsite means we cannot meet the Environment Agency's model – and this is a real barrier to progressing the scheme.

I understand that a similar scheme in Birmingham was delayed for a number of years for similar reasons.

I am writing to seek Ministerial support for more positive engagement from the Environment Agency. I would like them to dedicate specific resource to work with the project team at Sandwell Council to find a solution. Please can you reassure me that you are giving this serious consideration? I know that the West Midlands Mayor is also concerned.

I know you share my aspiration to build as much new housing as possible. I look forward to your answer.”

That is not passive observation.

That is active political intervention.

A Minister was being asked to help secure more positive engagement from the regulator because the regulatory position was described as a “real barrier to progressing the scheme”.

Nothing inherently wrong with an MP lobbying on something she supports.

But compare that intervention with what residents were subsequently told.

When we asked Antonia Bance to scrutinise:

contaminated land,

remediation,

flooding,

air quality,

school capacity,

SEND,

traffic,

infrastructure,

and transparency,

we were repeatedly sent back to the future planning process.

So apparently political intervention before planning is entirely acceptable when the objective is overcoming a barrier to development.

But residents asking their MP to interrogate the risks before planning?

Apparently that can wait.

That contradiction is becoming impossible to ignore.

Bance Was Also Trying to Change the Housing Mix

And the involvement did not stop at the Environment Agency.

On 11 February 2026, Richard Parker and Antonia Bance jointly wrote to Sandwell's then Leader Kerrie Carmichael.

This is what they said:

“We are writing following our meeting last week, where we discussed the next steps for the Friar Park scheme and the opportunity to significantly strengthen the social housing offer on the site.

The scheme is currently expected to deliver around 25% social housing, but we are united in our ambition for this to increase to 50%, reflecting both local housing need and our joint priorities around affordability and community stability.

To achieve this within the rules and opportunities of the Social and Affordable Homes Programme, we will need to work with a Registered Provider partner capable of delivering at scale. We are keen to identify an RP who is willing to work with us to realise this ambition.

At the same time, we would welcome Sandwell Council's leadership in deploying as much of your available social housing resource as possible into the site. Antonia is especially keen that the new social homes include a strong council-owned element, ensuring long-term affordability for Sandwell residents.

With clear ambition and coordinated action, Friar Park has the potential to become one of the most significant social housing-led regeneration projects in the region.”

So, again, important strategic decisions about Friar Park were being actively pursued before the main housing planning application.

Bance wasn't waiting for planning.

Parker wasn't waiting for planning.

Sandwell wasn't waiting for planning.

WMCA wasn't waiting for planning.

Homes England wasn't waiting for planning.

Only residents seem to have been repeatedly told that our questions were premature.

Homes England Was Being Pressed Too

On the same day, Parker and Bance wrote to Homes England.

They said:

“Following our meeting last week, we wanted to set out the shared position we discussed regarding the future of the Friar Park development.

As you know, the current plan anticipates around 25% social housing on the site. Both of us are clear in our shared ambition for this to increase to 50% social housing, reflecting local need and the scale of the opportunity at Friar Park.

We are keen to work closely with Homes England to advance this ambition, particularly in the context of the Social and Affordable Homes Programme.

Given the size of the project and the structure of the programme, it is likely that a strategic Registered Provider partner will be required to help secure and deliver this uplift. We would welcome Homes England's support in identifying a suitable RP with the appetite and capacity to work with us at pace.

We also ask that Homes England prioritise Friar Park within the ASHP, given the significant potential to deliver large numbers of new social homes in an area with high housing pressure.

We look forward to continuing our work together to make Friar Park a leading example of ambitious and affordable housing delivery.”

“At pace.”

“Prioritise Friar Park.”

“Shared ambition.”

Again, very active language.

So can we finally put to bed the idea that meaningful discussion about Friar Park somehow has to wait until the planning consultation?

Clearly it did not for those promoting the project.

WMCA Had Already Contractually Fixed 25%

WMCA's December 2025 response to Bance is equally interesting.

It said:

“The level of affordable housing has been set at 25 per cent, in line with Sandwell Council's approved planning policy, and the developer will be contracted on this basis.

It is also worth noting that the Draft Local Plan proposes a lower requirement of 10 per cent, so securing 25 per cent here is a major achievement and a real positive for local families.

This is a firm commitment that cannot be reduced at a later date, as it will form an obligation in the Development Agreement between Sandwell MBC, WMCA and Keepmoat.”

Again, this tells us the project was already moving through contractual arrangements.

Not merely vague aspirations.

Contractual obligations.

Development agreements.

Funding discussions.

Housing-mix negotiations.

Yet apparently questions about the supporting infrastructure are best left until later.

Even Sandwell Pushed Back on 50%

Then Council Leader Kerrie Carmichael responded to the Parker/Bance proposal.

She wrote:

“I understand the rationale behind the ambition to achieve provision of 50% affordable housing on the Friar Park site – you know that I share your commitment to providing more people in Sandwell with a stable, affordable place to live.

At the same time, you will appreciate that decisions about deploying the Council's available social housing resource must be weighed carefully against the strategic aim of raising aspirations and equipping our communities with the tools and opportunities to improve their quality of life.

The Council considers that the Friar Park scheme can, and should, do much more than deliver new homes. It is an opportunity to transform lives and provide a greater sustainable base for realising aspiration.”

She continued:

“The contractual requirements of the preferred development partner, Keepmoat, will ensure the provision of 25% affordable housing provision through a registered provider, yet to be confirmed.

The Council is also reviewing the potential to acquire additional units from Keepmoat for retention within the Housing Revenue Account. Discussions are at an early stage, and whilst no details have yet been finalised, we are keen to ensure that additional units are secured through this mechanism.”

So there were already substantive disagreements and negotiations between major public bodies about what Friar Park should deliver.

Again:

before planning.

£30 Million Here, £58 Million There – But Don't Mention a School

Now forgive me a little sarcasm.

We have approximately £30 million of public grant being discussed.

We have a remediation alternative said to add another £58 million.

We have social housing grant being pursued.

We have WMCA.

Sandwell.

Homes England.

Government.

A Mayor.

An MP.

All trying to find routes to make housing happen.

But suggest that potentially 600-plus new homes might require serious consideration of a new secondary school and suddenly public money becomes terribly precious.

Mention additional SEND places and suddenly the answer is national reform, inclusion programmes, future funding rounds and patience.

To be absolutely clear, nobody is suggesting that the £30 million grant can simply be removed from the remediation programme and handed to a school.

Nor is the £58 million hypothetical additional remediation cost money sitting around waiting to be spent.

Different funding pots have different rules.

The point is the political urgency.

When housing needs unblocking, the machinery of Government appears capable of considerable movement.

When residents ask for the infrastructure that should accompany housing, we seem to encounter rather more shrugging.

Schools cost money.

SEND provision costs money.

Roads cost money.

Healthcare costs money.

Public transport costs money.

Apparently building 600-plus houses costs money too.

Who knew?

Perhaps the sensible approach would be to plan the infrastructure at the same time as the houses rather than telling residents it can all be sorted somewhere down the road.

What Residents Were Told Versus What Was Actually Happening

This is the part I cannot get past.

Residents were being told that these questions belonged in planning.

Meanwhile behind the scenes:

WMCA wanted Friar Park “unblocked”.

Officials were raising it through Government.

Downing Street was mentioned.

HM Treasury was mentioned.

The Environment Agency Chair was being approached.

Antonia Bance was lobbying a Minister.

The Mayor was involved.

Homes England was involved.

Sandwell was involved.

The housing tenure was being negotiated.

Funding was being pursued.

Regulatory obstacles were being escalated.

And officials were “working the different angles”.

There is nothing necessarily improper about public bodies trying to deliver a regeneration project.

But do not then tell the public that it is somehow too early for us to ask what the consequences are.

That is the problem.

Six Months to Find Out What They Already Knew

And perhaps the most depressing thing is how long it took to get even this far.

The people involved already had these emails.

They already had the briefings.

They already knew about the £58 million issue.

They already knew about the Environment Agency problem.

They already knew Government had been approached.

They already knew the Mayor and MP were intervening.

They already knew the affordable-housing discussions were happening.

Residents submitted an information request in April.

We got the first staged response in October.

That is not meaningful contemporary transparency.

That is historical archaeology.

By the time you finally get the documents, everybody involved has moved the project further along.

And We Still Haven't Got the Rest

Do not forget this.

WMCA itself says this is the first staged response.

Still outstanding are potentially crucial records about:

funding agreements,

heads of terms,

grant conditions,

project boards,

delivery papers,

internal emails,

risk summaries,

programme updates,

governance,

regulatory risks,

funding risks,

and timetable pressures.

In other words, some of the documents that could tell us even more about how this project was really being driven.

So this story is nowhere near finished.

Read It For Yourself

I don't ask anybody to simply believe Sandwell Insight.

Read the documents.

Read the original information request.

Read what the politicians and officers actually wrote.

This disclosure relates only to one part of the many issues and red flags being examined around Friar Park.

The full WhatDoTheyKnow request and WMCA disclosure can be read here:

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

Don't just read my interpretation.

Read their words.

The Bottom Line

The next time somebody tells residents to wait for planning, remember what these documents show.

Those promoting Friar Park weren't waiting.

They were lobbying.

They were escalating.

They were negotiating.

They were funding.

They were approaching Government.

They were approaching the regulator.

They were approaching Homes England.

They were discussing contracts.

They were trying to reshape the housing mix.

And they were:

“working the different angles.”

Fair enough.

But residents are entitled to work every legitimate angle available to us too.

FOI.

EIR.

Internal reviews.

The Information Commissioner.

Planning.

Scrutiny.

Councillors.

MPs.

Public meetings.

And public exposure of the documents themselves.

Because transparency should not mean telling the public what happened six months later after they have fought to extract the paperwork.

If Friar Park is as robust, sustainable and beneficial as its promoters say it is, then put the information on the table.

All of it.

And let the public see the whole picture.

Not just the reassuring message.

#FriarPark #FriarParkUrbanVillage #Wednesbury #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #WMCA #AntoniaBance #RichardParker #EnvironmentAgency #Keepmoat #Planning #Housing #ContaminatedLand #Brownfield #SEND #SchoolPlaces #Infrastructure #Transparency #FOI #EIR #Regeneration #SandwellInsight