Smethwick Pride in Place: £4 Million Looking for a Home — and a Rulebook That Cannot Agree With Itself

The latest Smethwick Partnership Board papers have landed, and this may be the most important pack yet.

Why?

Because we are no longer talking mainly about engagement plans, workshops and how many benches fit around a park.

We are now talking about who is allowed to make funding decisions, how oversubscribed grants will be rationed, a possible £120,000 CCTV scheme and, most significantly, what happens to around £4 million of regeneration money originally earmarked for Smethwick.

And buried inside the paperwork is a governance document which appears to argue with itself.

A small warning before we start.

These are the papers for the 9 October meeting. I have not yet seen the published minutes recording exactly what the Board ultimately agreed.

So where the papers contain proposals, that is exactly what I will call them.

No invented conclusions.

Just what the public documents actually say.

THE FUNDING SUBGROUP RULEBOOK DOESN'T MATCH ITS OWN REPORT

Let us start with the document governing the people who can actually award grants of up to £25,000.

The covering report says the Engagement and Funding Subgroup currently has 11 members.

It says the quorum is three Board members.

It says Board members can join the Subgroup.

And it says delegated authority was granted on 21 May 2026.

Fairly straightforward.

Then you turn a few pages and read the actual draft Terms of Reference.

And suddenly the quorum is six.

Only ten existing members are named.

Some existing members may apparently have to lose their voting rights.

And, remarkably, the document itself says the new arrangement contradicts what the Board previously approved and therefore “could be challenged”.

Read that again.

The document being presented to establish the governance arrangements for people awarding public money actually contains a warning that part of those arrangements contradicts a previous Board decision and could be challenged.

You really could not make it up.

If I submitted a grant application containing this many contradictory answers, I suspect I might be invited back for “further clarification”.

Perhaps the governance documents should apply to themselves.

THREE OR SIX?

This is not pedantry.

If three people constitute a quorum, that is one governance model.

If six people are required, that is another.

And it becomes even more important because the strengthened conflict rules say members whose organisations have applications in a funding round cannot participate in assessment or decision-making for that round.

That safeguard is welcome.

But if several Subgroup members declare conflicts, can the remaining members still make a valid decision?

That rather depends on whether quorum is three or six.

Which, at present, depends on which page you happen to be reading.

AND WAS THE POWER DELEGATED ON 21 MAY OR 26 MAY?

The covering report says the grant-awarding authority was delegated on 21 May.

The draft Terms of Reference says 26 May.

Probably a drafting mistake.

But this isn't the date of the office Christmas party.

It is the date on which authority was supposedly delegated to a body spending public money.

It should be correct.

Once.

Everywhere.

THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS

One issue I have raised previously has moved on.

The Board sought confirmation from Government about whether the delegated Funding Subgroup arrangements were satisfactory.

The latest action log records that MHCLG gave a verbal response on 18 September confirming that the governance arrangements were satisfactory.

Sandwell then requested that confirmation in writing.

Good.

That needs acknowledging.

So I am not suggesting that the existence of the delegated Subgroup is somehow proven unlawful.

It isn't.

But when the written Government response arrives, publish it.

Then we can close that particular question properly.

THE BOUNDARY RULE HAS DEVELOPED A MEMORY PROBLEM

Another issue needs explaining.

The October report says that at its 23 July meeting the Board agreed to change the eligibility criteria so that only organisations registered within Smethwick could apply.

There is just one difficulty.

The actual published minutes from 23 July say something rather different.

They record that organisations close to the Smethwick boundary should be considered on a case-by-case basis, with particular regard to how much benefit they would deliver to Smethwick residents.

They even say applications demonstrating clear local benefit should be encouraged.

So which is it?

Did the Board decide on 23 July that outside organisations were excluded?

Or did it decide that near-boundary organisations should be considered individually?

Both cannot describe the same decision without further explanation.

That is not an accusation of wrongdoing.

It is a documentary contradiction.

And documentary contradictions matter when organisations may have spent time preparing applications based on the rules they believed applied.

NOW THE MONEY HAS RUN OUT FASTER THAN EXPECTED

The grant programme is heavily oversubscribed.

By 25 September there had been 58 Expressions of Interest, with 39 invited to full application.

At the time of the October report, three projects had been awarded funding, while 39 applications remained in progress.

So a new prioritisation system has been proposed.

That is sensible.

There isn't enough money for every qualifying project, so somebody needs a fair way of deciding between them.

Unfortunately, the proposed process itself could do with another proofread.

SIX SIFTS — POSSIBLY — IF YOU CAN FOLLOW THEM

The system starts with a 60% minimum score.

Then applications can be filtered by evidence of need and additionality.

Then by the programme's five priority themes.

Then value for money.

Then match funding.

Then possibly a higher overall threshold of 65%.

But the drafting appears to repeat the value-for-money test and refers to stages in an order that does not make complete sense.

Before this system determines who receives money and who doesn't, somebody needs to tidy it up.

A grant applicant should be able to understand the rules without needing a whiteboard, several coloured pens and a retired cryptographer.

AND WHAT EXACTLY DOES 65% MEAN?

There is another important fairness issue.

The basic qualifying threshold is 60%.

But if there is still too much demand, the papers suggest raising the threshold to 65%.

Fine — perhaps.

But call it what it actually is.

If somebody scores 62%, they have passed the 60% quality threshold.

If they then lose out because other applicants scored better and the fund is oversubscribed, they should not suddenly be presented as having “failed”.

They qualified.

There just wasn't enough money.

That distinction matters, particularly to small community organisations trying to understand whether their project was weak or merely unsuccessful in a competitive round.

MATCH FUNDING — WATCH THIS ONE

Match funding also appears in the proposed prioritisation process.

On one level, that makes sense.

If £10,000 of Pride in Place money unlocks another £10,000 elsewhere, taxpayers potentially get more for their money.

But there is a danger.

Who is most likely to already have access to match funding?

A large established organisation with professional staff and established funders?

Or five residents running a community group from a church hall?

Exactly.

The Board has already recognised that excessive bureaucracy can disadvantage grassroots organisations.

It would be unfortunate if the new system fixed that problem with one hand and recreated it through match funding with the other.

THE £120,000 “QUICK WIN”

Then there is CCTV.

The proposal is beginning to take shape.

Around 20 cameras could potentially create a corridor from St Paul's Road through Tollhouse Way, Trinity Street and the High Street towards Bearwood and Waterloo Road.

The indicative cost?

Between £70,000 and £120,000.

Now, CCTV may be exactly what parts of Smethwick need.

Residents have raised crime and anti-social behaviour repeatedly.

But £120,000 is not loose change found behind the council sofa.

Before anybody reaches for the cheque book, I would want to know:

What are the annual monitoring costs?

Maintenance?

Network costs?

Power?

Replacement costs?

Who owns the cameras?

What crime hotspot data justifies each location?

What cameras already exist?

What is the evidence that another 20 cameras will produce measurable improvements?

The report itself admits the scheme is preliminary and needs further technical work.

Good.

Keep it that way until the evidence arrives.

NOW FOR THE REALLY BIG ONE: £4 MILLION

The Grove Lane project has fundamentally changed.

Originally £4.35 million of Towns Fund money was allocated towards buying land, demolition and remediation.

After negotiations, the landowner has secured a private development partner and an agreement has been reached which allows private redevelopment to proceed while the Council retains the CPO as a backstop.

That could ultimately be a good result.

But the financial consequence is enormous.

Approximately £4 million of the original allocation is now uncommitted and cannot be spent for its original purpose before the March 2028 deadline.

If an eligible alternative cannot be delivered, the money risks returning to Government.

And this is where things become very interesting.

OPTION ONE: UP TO £2 MILLION TOWARDS PRIVATE REMEDIATION

One proposal is to spend between £1.5 million and £2 million helping remediate the privately developed Grove Lane/Cranford Street site.

That may be defensible.

Brownfield remediation is expensive and difficult.

But the report itself acknowledges that public funding would be supporting a privately led development and would require proper due diligence, subsidy-control checks and safeguards.

Quite right.

Before handing over that sort of money, residents deserve to know:

What exactly does the public get?

What would the developer otherwise have paid?

What housing or regeneration benefit is guaranteed?

What clawback applies if the scheme stalls?

Public money should buy public benefit.

Not simply improve somebody else's development appraisal.

OPTION TWO: SEND SMETHWICK'S MONEY ELSEWHERE

And then we reach perhaps the most politically sensitive proposal in the whole pack.

The Board is being asked to consider using the uncommitted funding to help plug gaps in regeneration schemes elsewhere in Sandwell.

Around £3 million could go towards the Tipton Capital Regeneration Project.

Another £0.5 million to £1 million could potentially support work connected with West Bromwich, including Kings Cinema and former Indoor Market sites.

The report itself acknowledges the obvious drawback:

The money would leave Smethwick.

That should set alarm bells ringing.

This money was secured for regeneration in Smethwick.

Before a penny is moved elsewhere, I would expect a very strong public demonstration that there is genuinely no suitable Smethwick scheme capable of being delivered by March 2028.

Because the very same report lists potential Smethwick projects involving:

high streets;

public realm;

brownfield land;

community infrastructure;

transport;

heritage;

employment space;

and regeneration.

So let's exhaust those possibilities first.

“Spend it somewhere else because it's easier” should be the last option.

Not the convenient one.

AND THE NUMBERS DON'T QUITE ADD UP ELSEWHERE EITHER

The NDO report says 200 organisations had contacted the officer by 1 October.

Yet the table categorising why people contacted the NDO totals only 188.

Twelve contacts have apparently gone walkabout.

Probably nothing dramatic.

Probably a simple reporting discrepancy.

But in a programme built around measuring reach and community engagement, the figures should reconcile.

Otherwise we're back to Sandwell's favourite old statistical category:

“approximately, give or take a few.”

AND THE PUBLIC STILL CANNOT ATTEND

The agenda continues to state clearly that the Smethwick Partnership Board meeting is not open to the public or press.

I have said before that I have not established this as a breach of Pride in Place requirements.

But the optics remain peculiar.

A programme about community power.

A Board deciding how millions of pounds should be directed.

And the community is still outside the room.

The less open the meeting itself is, the more important the public paper trail becomes.

Which brings us full circle.

Because when the public paperwork itself says three members on one page, six on another, 11 members in one section, ten names in another and admits that its own proposal contradicts a previous Board decision...

...perhaps the public have earned the right to be a little inquisitive.

CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE

There are improvements.

Applicant support has increased substantially.

Conflict-of-interest rules are stronger.

The rolling grants race is being replaced with collective assessment.

CCTV is finally being considered against evidence and cost.

The Council appears to have negotiated a route that could get Grove Lane developed while retaining the CPO as protection.

Those things deserve recognition.

But none of them cancels the red flags.

THE RED FLAGS NOW

For me, they are straightforward.

The grant-awarding Subgroup's proposed rulebook contradicts its own covering report.

Its quorum is unclear.

Its voting membership is unclear.

The delegation date is inconsistent.

The October description of the July boundary decision conflicts with the published July minutes.

The oversubscription process needs rewriting before it is used.

The 60% versus 65% rule needs explaining.

Match funding could favour established organisations.

A CCTV proposal could cost £120,000 before lifetime costs are known.

The NDO figures do not reconcile.

And approximately £4 million originally allocated to Smethwick could potentially be moved to Tipton or West Bromwich.

That is quite enough to be going on with.

THE BOTTOM LINE

There is no evidence here proving corruption, fraud or grant fixing.

Let us be absolutely clear about that.

This is about something much less dramatic but still hugely important:

competent governance.

If you are spending public money, the rules should agree with themselves.

If you change eligibility, the minutes should clearly show when and why.

If you change scoring, applicants should know exactly what the new system means.

If you propose moving £4 million out of Smethwick, residents should see every local alternative first.

And if you want the public to trust a programme built around “Taking Back Control”, don't make them play Spot the Difference across seven committee papers to work out who actually controls what.

Smethwick Pride in Place has reached the serious-money stage.

The governance now needs to become equally serious.

Because the next question is no longer just:

“Who gets a £10,000 community grant?”

It is:

Who controls the money, where does the £4 million go — and will Smethwick still have Pride in Place when some of the money has found a new place altogether?

#Smethwick #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #PrideInPlace #SmethwickPartnershipBoard #PublicMoney #CommunityFunding #GrantFunding #Transparency #Accountability #CouncilScrutiny #LocalDemocracy #GroveLane #TownsFund #CCTV #Regeneration #Governance #FollowTheMoney