SANDWELL'S 606-PAGE CABINET MARATHON: HMOs, POLITICAL CREDIT-GRABBING AND THE DEMOCRACY THAT'S DISAPPEARING!

Reform has taken an important step on HMOs. But there's a lot more to this story — and a lot more work to do.

Well, here we go again!

On 14 October 2026, Sandwell Council's Cabinet met to consider a staggering 606-page agenda pack.

Six hundred and six pages!

And how long did the meeting last?

Just 42 minutes.

Now, I'm not suggesting Cabinet Members should sit there reading every page aloud. I'm sure they've had briefings, discussions with officers and opportunities to ask questions beforehand.

But the ordinary Sandwell resident doesn't enjoy that luxury.

They get hundreds of pages of reports, technical jargon, financial projections, legal implications and policy proposals, with precious little time to understand what is being decided.

And we're supposed to call that meaningful public scrutiny?

Pull the other one!

THE HMO REVOLUTION — OR A VERY LONG TIME COMING?

Let's start with the announcement attracting all the political attention.

Sandwell's Reform-led Cabinet has approved the making of an immediate borough-wide Article 4 Direction relating to the conversion of ordinary homes into small Houses in Multiple Occupation.

I welcome that decision.

Residents have been raising concerns for years about concentrations of HMOs, parking pressures, rubbish, overcrowding and the loss of family housing.

I've raised concerns myself, including the need for stronger enforcement and proper consideration of cumulative impacts.

But let's get something straight.

Article 4 didn't suddenly appear in October 2026 because somebody in the Council House discovered a new chapter of planning law.

This has been going on for years.

Former Conservative opposition leader Amrita Dunn says she raised Article 4 in 2022 and subsequently pressed for wider HMO licensing.

In September 2023, Labour-controlled Cabinet approved work on additional licensing and the evidence needed for an Article 4 Direction.

In June 2024, Labour approved borough-wide additional HMO licensing, which came into force in October that year.

In November 2025, Full Council passed a motion calling for further Article 4 preparation, linked to the emerging Local Plan. Amrita Dunn also sought additional progress reporting through an amendment, which was defeated.

Then, following Reform taking control in May 2026, Councillor Paul Snape says he moved a further motion in July pressing the Leader and Cabinet to progress Article 4.

And finally, on 14 October, Reform's Cabinet approved making an immediate borough-wide Direction.

That's the history.

Labour didn't do nothing. The Conservatives didn't do nothing. Reform hasn't done nothing.

But neither should anyone pretend that years of discussion are the same as getting an effective policy into operation.

The real question is why it has taken so long — and who was responsible for the delays at each stage.

I want the Council to publish a proper chronology, with dates, decisions, legal advice and explanations.

No political rewriting of history. Just the facts.

REFORM DESERVES CREDIT — BUT DON'T OPEN THE CHAMPAGNE YET!

I have repeatedly said that I want Reform to succeed in Sandwell.

Not because I believe councillors should receive a standing ovation every time they approve a report, but because Sandwell desperately needs effective leadership.

The October Article 4 decision is a positive step.

But let's not confuse approving the making of a Direction with completing the legal process.

The formal notice, commencement date, statutory consultation and confirmation process still matter.

An immediate Article 4 Direction normally requires confirmation within six months if it is to remain effective.

And there is another rather awkward issue.

Compensation.

The Cabinet report acknowledges that an immediate Direction creates potential financial liability in certain circumstances, particularly where qualifying planning applications are refused or made subject to more restrictive conditions during the relevant 12-month period.

The Council cannot accurately predict the value of possible claims.

And the report does not identify a dedicated compensation fund.

Now, that doesn't mean the Council should abandon Article 4. Far from it.

There is a reasonable argument that delaying implementation could encourage a rush of HMO conversions before the restrictions take effect.

But residents deserve to know what financial risks have been accepted, what advice was considered and how any successful claims would be funded.

Because if the Council gets this wrong, guess who ultimately bears the financial consequences?

ARTICLE 4 DOESN'T BAN HMOs!

Another important point.

Article 4 does not ban HMOs.

It removes specified permitted development rights, meaning that certain changes from ordinary homes to small HMOs require planning permission.

Existing lawful HMOs don't suddenly become illegal.

Nor does an Article 4 Direction guarantee that future HMO applications will be refused.

The Council will still need defensible planning policies, sound evidence and consistent decisions.

That includes looking properly at concentration, cumulative impacts, parking, waste and the character of neighbourhoods where those matters are relevant to planning.

And let's not forget enforcement.

What good is another policy if unlawful HMOs continue operating, breaches go uninvestigated and residents spend months chasing answers?

Article 4 without effective enforcement risks becoming another expensive exercise in paperwork.

HERE COMES THE REAL DEMOCRATIC TWIST!

Councillor Paul Snape suggested that Article 4 would bring every HMO application before the Planning Committee, giving residents a stronger voice through elected representatives.

I understand the intention.

But that isn't how the system works.

The national planning delegation reforms, scheduled to take effect on 31 October 2026, change how applications are allocated between officers and planning committees.

Under the new arrangements, certain applications must be decided by officers. Others may be referred to committee where the relevant criteria are met.

For applications in the latter category, referral requires agreement between a nominated senior planning officer and nominated Planning Committee member.

If they cannot agree, the application goes to officers.

So an HMO conversion can require planning permission without ever reaching the Planning Committee.

And simply collecting hundreds of objections won't automatically guarantee a committee hearing.

Residents can still object. Their material planning representations must still be considered.

But that is not the same as having the application debated and determined by their elected councillors.

How can Reform promise to bring democracy back into HMO planning without explaining the national rules that restrict the route to elected-member decisions?

I would like to know why these changes weren't clearly addressed in the October Cabinet report.

And I want Reform to go further.

Publish Sandwell's revised planning delegation arrangements. Explain how ward councillors can request referrals. Publish the reasons when applications are kept away from committee.

Give residents a system they can actually understand.

AND THEN THERE'S THE WEST MIDLANDS MAYOR!

As if the planning system wasn't complicated enough, further powers have been proposed for strategic-authority mayors to intervene in certain major developments.

The proposals have included housing schemes exceeding 150 homes.

Now consider Friar Park Urban Village in Wednesbury.

Approximately 600 homes.

A major brownfield regeneration proposal involving questions about school places, SEND provision, transport, air quality, noise, contamination, flood risk and infrastructure.

And, of course, the wider involvement of the West Midlands Combined Authority in regeneration and housing funding.

Under the proposed threshold, a development of that scale could potentially fall within the mayoral strategic-planning framework.

That doesn't mean the Mayor has taken over the FPUV application. There is no evidence before me that such an intervention has occurred.

But it does raise an important question.

Are decisions affecting Wednesbury's future going to become increasingly remote from the people who actually live there?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Infrastructure should lead development, not follow it.

We cannot keep approving housing and hoping schools, roads, doctors, environmental protection and public transport somehow catch up later.

Nor should the Future of Friar Park Board or the £20 million Pride in Place programme become a convenient way of presenting FPUV as a settled community priority.

They are separate matters and must remain accountable on their own terms.

I want Sandwell's Reform administration to demand clarity from government and the WMCA about exactly where local planning authority powers end and mayoral powers begin.

And I want residents, community organisations and ward councillors involved before the important decisions are effectively settled.

WHILE EVERYONE ARGUES ABOUT HMOs, LOOK WHAT ELSE WAS IN THOSE 606 PAGES!

The October Cabinet agenda wasn't just about Article 4.

There were major financial proposals and service decisions affecting residents across the borough.

The Council's Medium-Term Financial Strategy indicates that its 2027/28 budget could be balanced if proposed savings and income measures are approved and achieved.

But look further ahead.

The forecast annual funding gap, after the measures currently identified, rises to £44 million by 2031/32.

That's not an accumulated deficit. It's the projected shortfall for that financial year.

Still a rather substantial problem, wouldn't you agree?

Then we have proposals involving adult social care charging.

Some would increase the contributions people receiving care are expected to make.

Where are the clear, worked examples showing the effect on vulnerable residents?

Where is the explanation of how disability-related expenditure and individual circumstances will be protected?

And what about SEND transport?

The financial strategy identifies proposed annual savings increasing towards £9 million by 2031/32.

I want to see precisely how those savings will be delivered, how children and families will be affected and whether the assumptions are realistic.

Remember, the SEND strategy also forecasts growing demand.

We cannot keep discussing more housing without discussing the schools, specialist provision and transport that families will need.

Meanwhile, the performance report recorded 27 indicators rated Red, including 20 that were also Red in the previous quarter.

Where are the recovery plans? The named responsibilities? The deadlines?

And why should residents accept another round of reassuring corporate language without clear evidence of improvement?

The agenda also covered a multimillion-pound Oracle contract renewal, housing access procedures, highways maintenance, reablement commissioning and the Children's Trust.

These are substantial matters.

Yet the entire Cabinet meeting lasted 42 minutes.

FORTY-TWO MINUTES AND A MOUNTAIN OF PAPERWORK!

Let's return to the question of democracy.

The agenda pack was published on 6 October for a meeting on 14 October.

Eight calendar days.

Even allowing just two minutes per page, reading the full pack would take more than 20 hours.

That's before checking the financial calculations, researching planning law, examining previous decisions or preparing informed questions.

And Sandwell's public participation rules are hardly designed to make life easier.

At Full Council, public questions face a 10-working-day deadline, a 100-word limit and a 15-minute overall question period.

Cabinet and scrutiny have their own procedures, but the broader problem remains.

How is an ordinary resident supposed to understand and challenge major decisions when the information arrives so close to the meeting and the opportunities to speak are so restricted?

There's also the matter of minutes.

The October Cabinet minutes appeared promptly, while records from several earlier meetings have been much harder to find.

I want a proper audit of publication times rather than assumptions about deliberate withholding.

But if minutes can be produced promptly for Cabinet, why can't residents expect consistent standards across every committee?

A Council that wants public confidence should publish draft minutes promptly, clearly mark them as unconfirmed and explain any delays.

REFORM — YOU'VE GOT THE POWER. NOW USE IT!

Here's where I come back to my position as a critical friend.

Reform inherited many of Sandwell's longstanding problems.

That is true.

But Reform now controls the administration.

And with that comes responsibility.

You cannot spend the next four years blaming Labour for every problem while leaving the same systems, the same barriers and the same lack of transparency largely untouched.

If you genuinely want to do things differently, then do them differently.

Start by publishing a complete Article 4 implementation timetable and compensation-risk assessment.

Explain exactly how the new national planning delegation rules affect HMO applications and major developments.

Review the Constitution and make public engagement easier, not harder.

Publish committee minutes consistently and promptly.

Require clear public reporting on Cabinet decisions, savings delivery and persistently failing performance indicators.

And ensure FPUV is assessed against proper infrastructure, environmental and community evidence — not simply the pressure to deliver another headline housing number.

Don't just tell residents you're listening.

Show them where their concerns changed a decision.

That would be real accountability.

MY FINAL THOUGHT

Sandwell doesn't need another political competition over who thought of Article 4 first.

It needs an Article 4 Direction that is legally effective, financially defensible and supported by robust planning policy and enforcement.

It needs a planning system where residents understand who makes decisions and how their views can influence them.

It needs proper scrutiny of major housing developments like FPUV.

And it needs councillors willing to challenge officers, ask difficult questions and make that challenge visible to the public.

Reform has taken an important step.

I welcome it.

But one Cabinet vote does not repair years of problems.

Nor does a 606-page agenda pack demonstrate transparency simply because somebody has uploaded it to a website.

Democracy isn't measured by the number of pages a Council publishes. It's measured by whether the people affected can understand, question and influence what happens.

So come on, Reform.

You've got the opportunity to change Sandwell's culture.

Don't settle for changing the colour of the rosettes while leaving the same old machinery running underneath.

The residents of Sandwell deserve considerably better.

Sandwell Insight — Independent scrutiny. Evidence before political spin.

Sources and further reading

Sandwell Cabinet reports pack and minutes, 14 October 2026.
Sandwell Full Council, HMO motion, 4 November 2025.
Sandwell Cabinet decisions on additional HMO licensing, 2023–2024.
Government guidance: National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions.
Government consultation: Planning Powers for Mayors in England.
Sandwell's emerging Local Plan and supporting HMO evidence.

#SandwellInsight #SandwellCouncil #Article4 #HMOs #ReformUK #PlanningReform #FriarPark #Wednesbury #WMCA #LocalDemocracy #CouncilTransparency #Accountability

Saturday, 17 October 2026