Sandwell: 50 Years of Labour, Still Waiting…

Or how to run everything, yet fix very little

⚠️ Warning: Long read
Yes, it’s long.
No, it’s not padded.
If you’ve ever muttered “this place is a mess” while dodging a pothole, waiting for a GP, or filling in yet another council form — this one’s for you.

Sandwell has had around 50 years of Labour control.

That’s not a typo.
That’s not a cheap line.
That’s half a century.

And just to be crystal clear, today we have:

• a Labour-run Sandwell Council
• a Labour WMCA Mayor
• a Labour Police & Crime Commissioner
• and a Labour Government

In political terms, this is what’s known as “full control”.

In real life terms, residents might call it “how is it still this bad?”

One Party Everywhere… Yet No-One’s at the Wheel

With this level of political alignment, you’d expect:

• joined-up leadership
• coordinated action
• clear priorities
• and rapid problem-solving

Instead, what we get is:

• siloed decision-making
• endless strategies
• minimal delivery
• and a lot of people explaining why something can’t be done

It’s like watching four people wearing the same rosette argue over who left the kettle on — while the house burns down.

Same party.
Different offices.
No grip.

The Post-Commissioners Glow-Up (That No One Else Can See)

We were told Sandwell had improved.

Commissioners left.
Auditors nodded approvingly.
Reports spoke of “progress”.

Yet residents noticed something odd…

Things didn’t feel better. They felt worse.

• services slower
• systems more bureaucratic
• responses colder
• engagement thinner

The council didn’t rebuild trust after intervention.
It learned how to look compliant while carrying on much the same.

The paperwork got better.
The experience didn’t.

Red Risks: Now in Convenient Shades of “Managed”

Council reports still list RED risks — notably:

• SEND placements and transport (demand and cost)
• homelessness and temporary accommodation
• long-term financial sustainability

Once upon a time, a red risk meant:

“Stop. Fix this. Now.”

In Sandwell, it increasingly means:

“Yes, we know. It’s very complicated.”

Red risks aren’t solved — they’re lived with.
Downgraded.
Reworded.
Explained away.

When everything is high risk, nothing feels urgent, and accountability quietly slips out the back door.

SEND: A Crisis That Never Quite Reaches the Top of the List

SEND pressures in Sandwell aren’t new.
They aren’t sudden.
They aren’t surprising.

And yet every year:

• demand rises
• costs spiral
• families struggle
• transport gets longer
• schools buckle

And every year the explanation is the same:

“It’s complex.”

Complex doesn’t mean unpredictable.
It means poorly planned for — repeatedly.

Families live the consequences.
The system files another report.

Housing: Always a Strategy, Rarely a Home

Sandwell is very good at housing strategies.

What residents see instead:

• overcrowded homes
• long waiting lists
• poor-quality private rentals
• families stuck in temporary accommodation
• regeneration that’s always “coming soon”

There’s always a consultation.
Always a vision.
Always a framework.

What’s missing is enough actual, affordable homes.

You can’t live in a strategy document — no matter how glossy it is.

Potholes: Award-Winning, Apparently

At one point, Sandwell even received praise for pothole management.

If that made you laugh out loud, you’re not alone.

Residents experience:

• repeat repairs
• patch-on-patch jobs
• roads permanently “under works”
• surfaces that collapse faster than trust

But don’t worry — the KPI says it’s going brilliantly.

Being told your roads are excellent while you dodge craters daily isn’t reassurance.

It’s institutional gaslighting.

MySandwell: The Customer Journey Designed by Someone Who Never Uses It

Reporting an issue should be easy.

Instead, residents get:

• clunky online forms
• limited categories
• confusing pathways
• poor updates
• and silence once you click “submit”

Tools people actually understood?
Gone.

The system works beautifully —
for the council.

For residents, it’s an obstacle course with a “thank you for your feedback” sign at the exit.

NHS & GP Access: The Dashboard Says Yes, Reality Says No

Officially, things are improving.

Residents say:

• GP appointments are harder to get
• digital triage blocks access
• call-backs replace consultations
• waiting lists feel endless

Both things can be true.

Averages hide inequality — and Sandwell has plenty of that.

And now that Labour controls health policy nationally too, the old excuses have expired.

Consultation Theatre: Have Your Say (But Not That Say)

Take the recent budget consultation.

Advertised as “Have your say”.

In reality:

• financial assumptions already locked in
• savings options pre-selected
• residents asked to rank pain, not question competence
• responses later quoted as “public engagement”

This isn’t participation.

It’s choose-your-own-austerity.

Residents are consulted after the real decisions are made — then thanked for agreeing with them.

Scrutiny: Scheduled, Safe and Toothless

Scrutiny is meant to challenge power.

In Sandwell it often:

• asks safe questions
• avoids follow-ups
• accepts vague answers
• and moves on

Officers aren’t stretched.
Decisions aren’t tested.
Residents aren’t represented properly.

Scrutiny isn’t feared.

It’s diarised.

Volunteers & Friends Groups: Praised in Speeches, Ignored in Practice

Sandwell loves talking about:

• community resilience
• partnership
• volunteering

Yet many volunteers, Friends Groups and local organisations report:

• being sidelined
• poorly communicated with
• invited late (if at all)
• used when convenient

These are the people:

• maintaining parks
• supporting vulnerable residents
• preventing problems escalating

And they’re treated like a nuisance.

Sandwell praises community spirit —
while quietly freezing it out.

Fifty Years On, This Is No Longer Bad Luck

After 50 years, residents are entitled to stop asking:

“Why is it hard?”

And start asking:

“Why hasn’t it worked?”

Why is deprivation still entrenched?
Why does infrastructure feel tired?
Why does engagement feel staged?
Why does the council feel further away than ever?

At some point, history stops being context — and becomes evidence.

All-Out Elections: A Rare Reset Button

This year, Sandwell has all-out elections.

That’s not routine.
That’s an opportunity.

A chance to:

• refresh the council
• strengthen scrutiny
• introduce independent voices
• challenge complacency

This election shouldn’t be about party loyalty.

It should be about local accountability.

A Final Word Before You Vote

Ask candidates:

• will you challenge bad decisions — even if your party doesn’t like it?
• will you stand up for residents, not just repeat lines?
• will you work with volunteers and Friends Groups?
• will you read the reports and ask proper questions?

Because once elected, residents live with the consequences.

Final Thought

Sandwell doesn’t need:

• better slogans
• shinier strategies
• or another consultation that leads nowhere

It needs councillors who represent communities — not the system.

So read carefully.
Laugh where it hurts.
And when you vote…

beware of who — and what — you are voting for.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #AllOutElections #LocalDemocracy #Accountability #ConsultationTheatre #Scrutiny #SEND #HousingCrisis #Infrastructure #VolunteersMatter #FriendsGroups #TimeForChange

Planning by Déjà Vu: Four Developments, the Same Questions, and a Growing Sense of Unease

Planning by Déjà Vu: Four Developments, the Same Questions, and a Growing Sense of Unease

If you live anywhere near Friar Park, the A4031 corridor, or the ever-expanding “regeneration zone” that now seems to stretch by default from West Bromwich to Walsall, you may be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu.

Not because the buildings all look the same — though some do — but because the same issues, the same gaps, and the same unanswered questions keep resurfacing across multiple planning decisions.

Since our last blog, which highlighted the ongoing silence from our MP Antonia Bance despite repeated requests for engagement, we have taken a closer look at four separate planning applications in and around Friar Park and neighbouring wards. What we’ve found is not a single “gotcha”, but something arguably more troubling: a pattern.

This article doesn’t name application numbers. It doesn’t accuse. It doesn’t leap to conclusions. But it does set out, calmly and factually, why residents are entitled to ask whether national and local planning policy is being applied as intended — or merely referenced and waved through.

The Same Issues, Again and Again

Across four different developments, reviewed independently, a remarkably similar set of concerns emerges.

1. Decisions First, Evidence Later

In several cases, fundamental matters — contaminated land, drainage, biodiversity delivery, noise mitigation — are acknowledged as risks, but not resolved before permission is granted. Instead, they are deferred to future conditions.

Conditions have their place. But national planning guidance is clear: conditions should not be used to compensate for a lack of evidence at decision stage, particularly where land suitability, public health, or environmental risk is concerned.

Yet time and again, the approach appears to be:

“Approve now, investigate properly later.”

That is not what the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) envisages.

2. Biodiversity Net Gain: Numbers on Paper, Questions on the Ground

All four developments lean heavily on Biodiversity Net Gain calculations to demonstrate compliance. On paper, they often exceed the 10% requirement.

What’s less clear is whether:

• harm has genuinely been avoided first (as the mitigation hierarchy requires),
• habitat condition scores are robust or optimistic,
• long-term delivery and monitoring are genuinely secured,
• or whether small numerical uplifts are being used to justify avoidable loss.

BNG is meant to enhance nature, not become a mathematical fig leaf.

3. Transport and Parking: Intensification Without the Follow-Through

Several of the schemes involve intensified use — more visitors, more activity, longer hours — yet parking provision often increases only marginally, if at all.

Transport statements frequently reassure, but:

• overspill parking,
• cumulative impacts with nearby developments,
• and real-world behaviour at peak times

are rarely tested in a way residents would recognise as realistic.

National policy requires development to be appropriate for its location. That includes the lived experience of streets, not just traffic models.

4. Noise, Air Quality, and Public Health: Technically Noted, Practically Deferred

Noise and air quality are usually “assessed”, and Public Health officers often raise sensible caveats. But the resolution is often conditional rather than substantive.

Construction management plans. Operational mitigation. Future monitoring.

All fine in theory — but residents are left asking:

What happens when the mitigation doesn’t quite work as predicted?

Planning is meant to prevent harm, not manage complaints after the fact.

The Policy Gap That Keeps Appearing

What is striking is not that policies are ignored — they are quoted frequently.
The issue is how they are applied.

Local Plan policies on:

• land stability,
• flood risk,
• design quality,
• biodiversity,
• infrastructure provision

are often cited in decisions, yet the practical outcome relies heavily on future submissions, future approvals, and future enforcement.

This creates a growing disconnect between:

• policy intent, and
• decision reality.

And that disconnect appears more than once.

Why Residents Are Now Seeking Clarification

Because of these recurring issues, Freedom of Information requests have now been submitted. Their purpose is straightforward:

• to understand how risks were weighed,
• how decisions were justified internally,
• and whether concerns raised by specialists were fully addressed.

This is not about relitigating planning decisions.
It is about transparency, consistency, and confidence in the process.

A Final Thought

Individually, each development can be defended.
Collectively, they raise a more uncomfortable question:

Are we seeing careful, evidence-led planning — or a system under pressure, defaulting to approval and hoping conditions will carry the weight?

Residents are not anti-development. They are anti-complacency.

And when questions keep repeating themselves across multiple sites, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the answers are repeating too — or simply not being given.

More to follow.

Editor’s note

This article follows on from a previous post documenting repeated attempts to engage our local MP, Antonia Bance, on planning, environmental and infrastructure concerns affecting Friar Park and neighbouring wards. Despite correspondence and requests for dialogue, no substantive response has been received. The issues raised here reflect the questions and uncertainties that remain unanswered, and why residents have felt it necessary to examine planning decisions more closely and seek clarification through formal channels.

#FriarPark #PlanningConcerns #LocalDemocracy #PlanningPolicy #NPPF #LocalPlan #EnvironmentalProtection #BiodiversityNetGain #AirQuality #NoisePollution #TrafficImpact #InfrastructurePressure #CommunityImpact #Transparency #FOI #PublicAccountability #Sandwell #Wednesbury #Tipton #Coseley