SANDWELL INSIGHT: REFORM SAID NO TO LOSING LOCAL DEMOCRACY — THEN DIDN'T VOTE AGAINST IT!

 

SANDWELL INSIGHT: REFORM SAID NO TO LOSING LOCAL DEMOCRACY — THEN DIDN'T VOTE AGAINST IT!

Four abstentions, two votes in favour, nobody against. Welcome to Sandwell's latest constitutional controversy!

Well, well, well.

Just when you think Sandwell Council's Governance and Constitution Review Committee couldn't possibly produce anything more interesting than a discussion about constitutional amendments, along come the minutes of 6 October 2026.

And what a fascinating little document they are.

I've been examining the meetings held on 15 September and 6 October, particularly the changes to planning decisions, councillor involvement and the ability of residents to influence what happens in their own neighbourhoods.

I've already raised serious concerns about the new arrangements.

But now we have the actual voting record.

And quite frankly, it raises more questions than it answers.

REFORM OPPOSED THE CHANGES. SO HOW DID THEY VOTE?

The minutes record that Councillor Ray Nock, the Chair, and Reform members believed the Government's changes would limit public involvement in planning matters and reduce local democratic involvement.

They therefore did not support the recommendations.

Fair enough.

I've been raising precisely those concerns myself.

But then came the vote.

FOR: Councillors Moore and Preece.

AGAINST: NOBODY.

ABSTENTIONS: Councillors Nock, Cooper, Sabharwal and Zefi.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Four councillors who expressed opposition to the proposals did not vote against them.

They abstained.

And the recommendations were endorsed by the committee, with just two votes in favour.

You couldn't make it up.

Now, abstaining is perfectly legitimate. There may even have been sound reasons for doing so.

But the minutes don't tell us what those reasons were.

And when councillors have just expressed serious concerns about the erosion of local democracy, I think residents are entitled to an explanation.

Why express opposition and then abstain when the vote arrives?

That's not an unreasonable question.

It's accountability.

LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT — THIS CAME FROM WESTMINSTER

Before anybody starts accusing me of blaming Sandwell's Reform administration for everything under the sun, let's establish the facts.

The changes arise from national planning legislation and regulations.

Sandwell didn't invent them.

Reform didn't invent them.

The Council is required to bring its constitutional arrangements into line with the new statutory framework.

Indeed, the committee was warned that failing to approve the necessary changes could create legal uncertainty and increase the risk of procedural errors and challenges.

That matters.

A vote against the recommendations would not magically repeal national legislation.

But here's the point.

There is a difference between complying with the law and demanding the strongest possible safeguards for local democracy.

And that's where Sandwell's councillors need to demonstrate what they intend to do.

THE COUNCILLOR CALL-IN IS GOING

Perhaps the most alarming confirmation in the October minutes concerns planning applications.

Members were explicitly told that councillors would no longer be able to call in applications for consideration by Planning Committee under the new arrangements.

Think about what that means.

For years, residents concerned about a controversial planning application could approach their ward councillors and ask them to seek committee consideration.

That route gave communities an identifiable elected representative who could intervene in the process.

Under the new national arrangements, a councillor's request no longer guarantees that an application reaches Planning Committee.

Nor does a large petition.

Nor do hundreds of objections, simply because there are hundreds of them.

The statutory criteria determine whether an application can be referred.

This is particularly concerning when we consider the battles residents have been fighting over Houses in Multiple Occupation, inappropriate developments and the cumulative effects of planning decisions on their neighbourhoods.

The community voice isn't disappearing completely.

But its direct route to elected committee consideration is being significantly restricted.

And that deserves far more public attention than it's receiving.

THE NEW ADVISORY GROUP — DEMOCRACY OR DECORATION?

Sandwell proposes establishing a Planning Referral Advisory Group.

It would include the Planning Committee Chair and Vice-Chair, together with up to three additional trained councillors.

The October minutes clarify that the additional places were intended for one Reform member, one Labour member and one Green or Independent member.

Some additional cross-party involvement is welcome.

But what can this group actually do?

It cannot determine a planning application.

It cannot decide whether an application goes before Planning Committee.

Its observations are advisory.

The nominated planning officer and nominated councillor retain responsibility for determining whether the statutory referral criteria are met.

And the Advisory Group cannot review their decision.

So let's be careful about presenting this as a major new democratic safeguard.

It gives councillors an opportunity to offer observations. It does not give them the power to secure a committee hearing.

That's a considerable distinction.

WHO CONTROLS THE GATEWAY?

There's another important detail buried in the recommendations.

The nominated planning officer, following consultation with the Monitoring Officer, would be authorised to approve and amend the written referral procedure governing how applications are selected for consideration by the Advisory Group.

In other words, the operating procedure for this additional layer of scrutiny could be approved and changed through an officer-led process.

Now, that doesn't automatically mean anything improper is happening.

But surely the procedure should be published, clearly explained and subjected to meaningful democratic oversight?

Residents should be able to see which applications were considered, what their councillors said, whether the Advisory Group was involved, who made the referral decision and why.

Otherwise, how are we supposed to know whether the safeguards are working?

Transparency must be built into the process, not offered as an optional extra afterwards.

WHAT ABOUT HMOs?

The October minutes also confirm that members asked about Houses in Multiple Occupation.

They were told Sandwell's Local Plan could potentially be used to restrict HMO numbers in certain circumstances.

But there could be no guarantee until the Local Plan had completed examination by the Planning Inspectorate and been adopted.

That is important.

Sandwell residents have been fighting controversial HMO applications across the borough.

I've repeatedly argued for stronger planning policies, better enforcement, consideration of concentration and cumulative impact, and a much clearer approach to protecting established communities.

Yet at the same time as councillors discuss stronger HMO controls, the route by which residents can secure consideration by Planning Committee is becoming narrower.

A tougher policy is of limited comfort if residents cannot understand how that policy will be applied, challenged or scrutinised.

AND WHAT HAPPENED IN SEPTEMBER?

Let's not forget the previous meeting.

On 15 September, the committee considered changes to Sandwell's petition arrangements.

There were welcome proposals to introduce different thresholds for street, community and Full Council petitions, together with further consideration of an electronic petition system.

Those proposals deserve recognition.

The planning delegation changes, however, were deferred for further information.

Yet the September minutes provide little detail about precisely what additional information councillors wanted.

By October, the matter had returned with the proposed Advisory Group.

But residents still deserve to know exactly what concerns were raised, how they were addressed and why the revised arrangements were considered sufficient.

That is what a meaningful public record should demonstrate.

THE MINUTES — WHY MUST RESIDENTS KEEP HUNTING?

And here we go again.

The September minutes appeared within the October meeting papers.

We now also have the October minutes.

Good.

But I've repeatedly encountered difficulties locating minutes directly and promptly through Sandwell's committee meeting pages.

There is a simple solution.

Publish draft minutes promptly, clearly mark them as drafts, and make the approved versions available on the relevant meeting page.

The minutes are not just an administrative formality.

They're the public record of who attended, what was discussed, what decisions were made and how councillors voted.

And without the October minutes, how many residents would have known that four councillors who expressed opposition to the planning proposals actually abstained?

That is precisely why access to minutes matters.

THIRTY-FOUR MINUTES TO DEAL WITH THE BUSINESS

The October meeting started at 10.30am and ended at 11.04am, including a three-minute adjournment.

Thirty-four minutes in total.

Now, meeting length alone doesn't prove inadequate scrutiny. Councillors may have studied the papers beforehand and discussed matters outside the formal meeting.

But given the significance of these constitutional changes, the public record should provide a clear account of the concerns raised and the reasoning behind the recommendations.

Especially when the changes affect how residents and councillors participate in planning decisions for years to come.

REFORM: YOU WANTED CHANGE. HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO SHOW IT.

I've said repeatedly that I want to see genuine improvements in Sandwell.

I've criticised Labour's historic governance failures, and I have no intention of giving Reform a free pass simply because it promised to do things differently.

Reform took control of Sandwell in May 2026.

It inherited an enormous number of problems.

But it also inherited the responsibility to demonstrate openness, accountability and better decision-making.

And here we have an extraordinary situation.

Reform councillors expressed opposition to national changes they believed would reduce local democratic involvement.

Then four abstained.

Nobody voted against the recommendations.

I am not suggesting that voting against legally required constitutional changes would have stopped the legislation.

It wouldn't.

But residents deserve to know what those councillors intended to achieve through abstention, whether they sought stronger safeguards, and what they plan to do next.

Opposition recorded in minutes is one thing. Turning that opposition into practical protection for residents is another.

FULL COUNCIL — 20 OCTOBER 2026

The committee recommended that the constitutional changes go before Full Council on 20 October.

That is where attention must now turn.

Will councillors insist upon publication of the referral procedure?

Will every referral decision and its reasoning be publicly accessible?

Will ward councillor representations be recorded?

Will there be proper reporting of how many applications are determined by officers rather than committees?

Will the new Advisory Group's effectiveness be scrutinised?

And will Sandwell finally establish a consistent, prompt and accessible system for publishing committee minutes?

These are practical questions.

They do not require Sandwell to ignore national legislation.

They require Sandwell to demonstrate that local democracy still matters.

MY FINAL THOUGHT

I find the voting record astonishing.

Not because abstention is unlawful or procedurally wrong.

It isn't.

But because four councillors expressed opposition to changes affecting the democratic involvement of residents, and then chose not to vote against the recommendations.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

So let's hear it.

And while we're waiting, let's remember what this is really about.

Not committee titles.

Not constitutional jargon.

Not political point-scoring.

It's about whether ordinary people in Sandwell can influence decisions affecting their streets, homes and neighbourhoods.

Because when the public's route to Planning Committee becomes narrower, every remaining safeguard becomes more important.

And if councillors say local democracy is being weakened, the very least residents should expect is a clear explanation of what those councillors are doing to protect it.

Sandwell Insight will be watching what happens at Full Council on 20 October.

And this time, I'll be paying particular attention to the votes.

#SandwellInsight #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #RayNock #LocalDemocracy #Planning #HMOs #Transparency #Accountability #Sandwell