Sandwell Insight: Reform Promised a Clean Broom — So Why Are We Still Fighting for Democracy?
Pre-meeting analysis — Sandwell Full Council, Tuesday 20 October 2026
Well, here we go again.
Another Sandwell Full Council meeting. Another enormous agenda pack. 320 pages of reports, recommendations, declarations, plans, strategies and motions.
And buried among all that paperwork is something that should concern every Sandwell resident, regardless of political allegiance.
The steady erosion of local involvement in planning decisions.
Meanwhile, councillors will be debating a four-day working week, declaring a Housing Emergency while rescinding a Climate Emergency, and receiving annual reports telling us how the council has been performing.
You really couldn't make some of this up.
But before we start, let me be absolutely clear.
This is a PRE-MEETING blog.
The meeting takes place on Tuesday 20 October 2026 at 6pm, so the proposals discussed here have not yet been determined at this meeting.
I've been through the paperwork, examined the implications and, importantly, sent a detailed critical-friend briefing to all Reform councillors, including a suggested emergency motion challenging the national changes to planning decision-making.
Whether they take any notice remains to be seen.
But at least nobody can say the concerns weren't raised.
READ THE FULL COUNCIL AGENDA AND REPORTS HERE
WATCH FULL COUNCIL LIVE — TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER, 6PM
Planning Democracy — Going, Going... Almost Gone?
Let's start with the biggest issue.
Agenda Item 15 — Constitutional Amendments to Planning Committee Responsibilities and Scheme of Delegation to Officers.
Doesn't exactly sound like a headline-grabber, does it?
And that's half the problem.
Buried beneath that wonderful helping of local government language is a fundamental change in how planning applications are determined.
The Government's new National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions is due to come into force on 31 October.
Under the new arrangements, more categories of planning applications must be decided by officers, while applications in other categories can only reach Planning Committee where the statutory referral criteria are met.
And what about the ward councillor who knows the area?
What about the residents who have spent weeks putting together objections?
What about petitions?
What about cumulative impacts, parking, school capacity, air quality and infrastructure?
Well, the report makes clear that a councillor's request, the number of objections or a petition will no longer automatically secure consideration by Planning Committee.
Even HMOs cannot automatically be sent to committee merely because they are HMOs.
So much for giving communities a stronger voice.
Now, let's be fair. These are national changes. Sandwell cannot simply vote to ignore legislation.
But councillors can object to the policy, seek changes to the law, insist on the strongest lawful local safeguards and demand transparency over decisions.
That is precisely what I believe should happen.
And there is another complication.
Only in July, councillors passed a motion seeking greater Planning Committee oversight of HMO applications where legally possible.
Now, barely three months later, they are being asked to approve a constitutional framework that restricts automatic referrals.
Someone needs to explain to residents exactly what remains of that July promise.
Was it meaningful policy, or another Sandwell motion destined to disappear into the paperwork?
And Now the West Midlands Mayor Could Get More Planning Powers
As if that weren't enough, the Government has separately proposed extending planning intervention powers for strategic-authority mayors.
That includes the West Midlands.
The proposals are intended to accelerate strategically important development, but they also raise questions about where decisions are made and how much influence constituent councils retain.
Could major Sandwell development proposals end up being determined at a regional level rather than locally?
Potentially, where the relevant powers and statutory conditions apply.
And that should immediately bring to mind developments such as Friar Park Urban Village, alongside major regeneration proposals elsewhere in the borough.
We've already spent considerable time raising questions about Friar Park's infrastructure, education capacity, SEND places, air and noise pollution, traffic, flooding, remediation and green spaces.
These matters don't magically disappear because somebody somewhere wants another housing target achieved.
Infrastructure must lead development, not arrive years afterwards with another apology and a funding bid.
I would like to know whether Sandwell formally responded to the Government's consultation on mayoral planning powers before it closed.
Who approved the response?
Were ward councillors involved?
Were residents consulted?
And what did Sandwell actually say?
I've Sent Reform Councillors a Suggested Emergency Motion
Yes, all of them have been sent my briefing and a suggested emergency motion.
The proposed motion calls for formal representations to the Secretary of State, written assurances from the West Midlands Mayor, greater transparency over planning referrals, protection of meaningful community participation and a six-month public review.
It also recognises that Sandwell must comply with the law while campaigning for stronger local democratic safeguards.
I have additionally suggested amendments to Item 15 itself, should an emergency motion not be accepted under the council's procedural rules.
Let's see whether councillors raise the matter.
Not just the Leader.
Not just Cabinet.
All councillors have a responsibility to consider what these changes mean for the people they represent.
A Four-Day Working Week? Really?
Then we reach Item 19(i).
A motion from Cllr Richard Jeffcoat proposing that Cabinet consider a feasibility study into a four-day working week.
Now, to be precise, the motion does not immediately introduce one.
But I have to ask.
Are we seriously at the point where Sandwell should be spending time considering reduced working hours before establishing whether existing working arrangements are delivering?
How many staff are still working from home?
How many are operating hybrid arrangements?
How is productivity measured?
What about residents struggling to get telephone calls answered, appointments arranged, housing repairs completed, planning enquiries resolved or services responding promptly?
I'm not suggesting every employee working from home is failing to do their job. That would be nonsense.
But neither should anyone pretend that flexible working automatically improves services.
Let's have the figures.
Let's have the performance measures.
Let's have the evidence about residents' experiences.
Then perhaps we can discuss whether further changes to working patterns are appropriate.
Sandwell needs a council working for residents — not another workplace experiment before the basics have been properly examined.
A Housing Emergency — But Where's the Infrastructure?
Item 19(b) proposes declaring a Housing Emergency.
I understand the pressure.
There are households waiting far too long for suitable accommodation, families overcrowded, people requiring accessible housing and residents whose medical or welfare circumstances make their current accommodation unsuitable.
But here's the thing.
Declaring an emergency doesn't build a single home.
Where are the delivery targets?
Where are the affordable homes?
Where are the bungalows and accessible properties?
Where are the schools, GP services, highways improvements and public transport?
And where is the protection for valued green spaces?
Sandwell must stop confusing housing numbers with successful communities.
A housing development without the infrastructure to support it is not automatically good planning.
It can simply move today's problems into tomorrow's neighbourhoods.
Scrap the Climate Emergency — But Don't Scrap Environmental Responsibility
Item 19(a) proposes rescinding Sandwell's Climate Emergency declaration.
I've long argued that Sandwell has become rather fond of pledges, charters, declarations, badges and glossy commitments.
My position remains that these should be audited for costs, legal requirements and measurable results.
But removing a declaration must not become an excuse for ignoring air pollution, flooding, wildlife, overheating, green corridors or environmental degradation.
I want to see practical action.
Cleaner air.
More suitable tree planting.
Protected nature reserves.
Improved river corridors.
Proper pollution monitoring.
Better flood resilience.
Less badge-polishing. More environmental improvement.
And considering Item 19(g) raises wildfire and extreme weather resilience, councillors will have an immediate opportunity to explain how these policies fit together.
Scrutiny — Have We Learned Anything From July?
Remember July?
Labour brought a motion about protecting scrutiny and the participation of opposition councillors.
It was defeated.
I supported the principle of that motion, despite Labour's own historical shortcomings in responding to public concerns.
Because scrutiny isn't a privilege belonging to whichever party happens to be in opposition.
It belongs to democracy.
Now October's agenda includes the annual Scrutiny Update.
Fine.
But an annual report about what scrutiny did last year tells us precious little about whether the current administration is genuinely welcoming scrutiny today.
Are Cabinet reports being challenged before major decisions?
Are recommendations followed up?
Are councillors being involved?
Are residents listened to?
Or is everything being managed by a small circle while everyone else is expected to applaud?
Reform was elected to change Sandwell's political culture.
You don't reform a closed shop by changing the sign above the door.
Planning Enforcement — 604 Open Cases
The Planning Committee Annual Report records 604 open planning enforcement cases.
That's a figure worth looking at.
It doesn't establish that all 604 are being mishandled. Some may be complicated, awaiting appeals or subject to investigations.
But where is the breakdown?
How many have been open for more than a year?
How many concern HMOs?
How many involve repeat complaints?
What are the enforcement outcomes?
How many have resulted in actual compliance?
Residents deserve far more than a headline figure and a reassuring paragraph.
If most planning applications are already determined by officers, and the new national arrangements restrict committee referrals further, then transparent enforcement and decision-making become even more important.
Audit and Risk — Don't Gloss Over the Uncomfortable Bits
The Audit and Risk report includes six limited-assurance reviews.
These cover areas including payroll, procurement, housing electrical safety, SEND placement costs and Children's Trust finances.
These are significant public services and control functions.
I'm pleased where Sandwell demonstrates genuine improvement, and that includes achievements made before Reform took office.
But an action plan is not the same as a completed improvement.
And a promise that auditors will follow matters up is not the same as independent confirmation that the problems have been resolved.
I want councillors asking when the recommendations will be completed, who is responsible and how progress will be independently verified.
Audit reports are supposed to expose problems so they can be fixed — not become another annual exercise in congratulating ourselves for identifying them.
Petitions — Residents Deserve More Than a Receipt
Item 16 proposes a revised petition scheme.
Street petitions need 25 valid signatures, community petitions 100, and Full Council petitions 2,000.
But what happens after a petition is accepted?
That is where the real test begins.
I've previously raised concerns about petitions being passed through the system while residents are left waiting for updates, investigations and outcomes.
I want published deadlines, progress reports, escalation arrangements and proper engagement with petitioners.
And I found it particularly interesting that the report says no consultation was required.
A scheme governing how residents engage with their council, and nobody thought it worthwhile asking residents what they wanted?
Legally required or not, public consultation could surely have improved the proposal.
The Missing Minutes — Another Familiar Sandwell Frustration
The July Full Council minutes are included in this October agenda pack.
But I've already raised concerns about finding them separately on the previous meeting webpage.
The council should explain precisely when the minutes were prepared and published, and how residents were expected to locate them.
Minutes should provide a timely and accessible record of what happened.
Residents should not have to play hunt-the-PDF to discover what their councillors have been doing.
Now, a Few Words to Reform
I have made no secret of wanting Sandwell's new administration to succeed in delivering genuine improvements.
I certainly don't want a return to decades of the old Labour political machinery.
But that doesn't mean Reform gets a free pass.
Far from it.
After 50 years of Labour excuses, the last thing Sandwell needs is Reform excuses.
The public voted for something different.
A clean broom.
A fresh approach.
Honesty.
Openness.
Proper scrutiny.
A council that listens.
Not old Tory habits repackaged in Reform colours.
Not councillors being micromanaged.
Not decisions emerging from a small leadership circle.
Not officers, residents and community groups finding out what has been decided after the event.
And certainly not a council that treats awkward questions as an inconvenience.
There is a lot of experience among Sandwell residents, community organisations, volunteers, campaigners and former public-service representatives.
Use it.
Engage with it.
Don't be frightened of it.
And don't assume that everyone raising concerns is an enemy.
Sometimes the people asking the most uncomfortable questions are the very people trying to stop you making an avoidable mistake.
The Clock Is Ticking
Many Reform councillors have short terms before facing the electorate again.
There is not an unlimited amount of time to demonstrate real change.
Control of the council should never be taken for granted.
The public will judge what changes in their streets, homes, services and communities.
Not the number of press releases.
Not the number of Facebook photographs.
Not the number of slogans.
And definitely not the number of times somebody announces that everything is improving.
Show us. Prove it. Publish it. Let us scrutinise it.
Tuesday Night — Let's See What Happens
I've done my bit ahead of this meeting.
I've examined the reports.
I've raised the concerns.
I've sent the briefing to all
Reform councillors.
And I've provided a suggested emergency motion challenging the national planning changes and seeking a response from Government and the West Midlands Mayor.
That motion is a proposal from me, not an item currently listed on the published agenda.
Will anybody take it forward?
Will councillors challenge the loss of automatic local planning referral rights?
Will the Leader commit to seeking stronger safeguards?
Will councillors demand evidence on working arrangements and service performance before entertaining further workplace changes?
Will we see genuine scrutiny and debate?
Or will it be another evening of lengthy reports, familiar speeches, political point-scoring and decisions passing with relatively little challenge?
Let's see if they take notice.
Because Sandwell did not vote for more of the same.
We voted for better. We expect better. And we will continue asking the questions until better is delivered.
BE REFORM. BE THE CHANGE. NOT THE CONTINUATOR.
Follow the meeting
Tuesday 20 October 2026 — 6pm
FULL COUNCIL AGENDA AND 320-PAGE REPORTS PACK
WATCH THE MEETING LIVE — SANDWELL CIVICO
Sandwell Insight — Independent scrutiny, commentary and accountability.
#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellInsight #ReformSandwell #RayNock #PlanningReform #LocalDemocracy #WMCA #PlanningCommittee #HMOs #FriarPark #FourDayWeek #HousingEmergency #Scrutiny #Transparency #PublicAccountability #BeTheChange #NotTheContinuator
No comments:
Post a Comment