FREE PARKING! FREE MARKET STALLS! QUICK — FIND THE PRESS RELEASE!

FREE PARKING! FREE MARKET STALLS! QUICK — FIND THE PRESS RELEASE!

Well, somebody in Sandwell’s PR department has found the regeneration button.

Free parking!

Free market stalls!

Wednesbury and Great Bridge are saved!

Put the bunting out. Dust off the scissors. Somebody find a Cabinet Member for the photograph.

Except, of course, they’re not saved.

Not even close.

Sandwell Council has announced that from September it will trial two hours’ free parking and free market pitches in Wednesbury and Great Bridge.

And, to be fair, I’ve got absolutely no problem with them trying it.

In fact, I hope it works.

But can we please avoid pretending that knocking a few quid off a market stall and letting somebody park for free for a couple of hours somehow solves years of decline?

Because it doesn’t.

It’s a sticking plaster.

And at the moment it looks suspiciously like a sticking plaster with a press release attached.

Wednesbury: move the market, pave the square, plant a tree...

Wednesbury has already had plenty of attention.

Millions have been spent.

Paving.

Lighting.

Trees.

Seating.

Heritage works.

Shopfront schemes.

Public realm.

And, of course, the market was moved.

The Market Place and Clock Tower area has been turned into one of those modern Council favourites — a “multi-use space”.

Which usually means it’s expected to be a market, event space, meeting place, pedestrian area, heritage attraction and probably somewhere to stage a brass band on alternate Tuesdays.

The problem is that a nice public square and a successful market are not necessarily the same thing.

Markets need concentration.

Stalls need to be together.

People need to be able to wander naturally between them.

You need bustle.

You need traders.

You need shoppers.

You need something worth buying.

Instead, around Market Place we have different levels, roads, crossing points and bits of space separated from other bits of space.

It may look prettier.

But does it actually work as a market?

That is the question Sandwell should have been asking before the paving slabs went down.

And Sandwell’s own figures provide an awkward little detail...

The Council has already evaluated some of the Wednesbury improvements.

And people thought the town centre looked better afterwards.

Good.

Credit where it’s due.

But here comes the slightly inconvenient bit.

How often people actually visited barely changed.

Oops.

So apparently people looked at the improvements and thought:

“That looks much nicer.”

...and then carried on visiting about as often as before.

That matters.

Because regeneration isn’t supposed to be a giant decorating exercise.

The idea is presumably to get more people into town, keep them there longer and encourage them to spend money.

Pretty paving doesn't pay a shopkeeper’s electricity bill.

What happened to the shops?

Sandwell’s own research has been warning about Wednesbury’s retail mix for years.

Traditional comparison shopping — clothes, household goods, specialist shops and the sort of businesses people actually browse around — has weakened.

Meanwhile there has been a very large growth or concentration of hair, beauty and other service businesses.

Now, before somebody starts typing furiously, there is absolutely nothing wrong with barbers, beauty salons, takeaways, vape shops or any other lawful business.

They provide services. They employ people. They pay rent.

The issue is balance.

A town centre needs reasons to wander around.

If I go to the barber, I go to the barber.

If I collect a takeaway, I collect a takeaway.

If I go into a betting shop, presumably I emerge several hours later wondering what happened to twenty quid.

What town centres desperately need are businesses that make people visit several places in one journey.

Browse.

Shop.

Eat.

Have a coffee.

Use the market.

Stay awhile.

Spend money.

That ecosystem has been weakening.

Then there’s Wednesbury Market...

The really amusing part of the new announcement is that market pitches will now be FREE.

Sounds dramatic.

Until you discover that a Saturday pitch in Wednesbury was already only about six quid.

Six quid.

So if traders weren’t rushing to Wednesbury Market when the rent was about the price of a large fish and chips, I’m not entirely convinced £0 is going to unleash a tidal wave of artisan bakers, cheesemakers and antique dealers.

Maybe it will encourage a few new traders.

I genuinely hope it does.

But if removing £6 is the difference between a thriving market and a struggling one, Sandwell has discovered perhaps the cheapest regeneration scheme in British history.

The rather more likely explanation is that the real problems are:

footfall, spending, market location, stall mix, customer demand and whether traders believe they can actually make any money.

And those issues don't disappear because somebody deleted £6.02 from a spreadsheet.

Then we arrive at Great Bridge...

Great Bridge is almost comic in a different way.

Because Great Bridge doesn't actually lack shoppers.

There are thousands of them.

Asda is there.

The retail park is there.

Major retailers are there.

Food outlets are there.

Cars pour in and out.

So where is the traditional Great Bridge town centre in all this?

Over there somewhere.

Sandwell's own planning evidence admits the retail park and traditional centre effectively operate separately.

Even better, the Council identifies the retail park as something which draws trade away from traditional Great Bridge.

Brilliant.

So we have spent years watching thousands of customers arrive virtually next door to the traditional centre without apparently cracking the enormously complicated mystery of:

“How do we get some of them to walk across the road?”

Perhaps somebody could organise a working group.

Followed by a consultation.

Followed by a strategy.

Followed by a glossy PDF.

Then perhaps in 2031 someone could suggest a sign.

Great Bridge’s retail mix isn't exactly helping either

Again, Sandwell’s own evidence tells us traditional comparison shopping is weak.

Retail services are disproportionately high.

Hairdressers make up a substantial number of those businesses.

Takeaways make up a large chunk of the leisure offer.

There are gambling and amusement uses, convenience businesses and other services.

Once again — individual businesses are not the villain here.

The problem is what happens when the overall mix becomes badly unbalanced.

A row of occupied shops does not automatically mean a healthy high street.

You can fill every unit in a town centre and still have a poor town centre if there is no variety and no reason for shoppers to browse.

Great Bridge Market: yours for the bargain price of nothing

Great Bridge Market stalls were already only around £7 a day.

Now they’ll be free.

Again, good luck to it.

But if £7 was stopping traders coming to Great Bridge, then apparently the Council has finally cracked the case.

Sherlock Holmes can stand down.

Of course, those of us who have actually seen Great Bridge Market might suspect the problem is somewhat larger.

A market needs traders.

Traders need customers.

Customers need reasons to come.

And three stalls surrounded by acres of empty space does not become Covent Garden because the Council stops charging seven quid.

What about parking?

Free parking is probably the most sensible part of the experiment.

Parking charges can irritate people.

If you're choosing between somewhere you can park free and somewhere that charges you, that might affect your decision.

So try it.

But again, let's not confuse removing one obstacle with rebuilding a town.

Free parking doesn't improve tired shopfronts.

It doesn't create a butcher, baker, clothes shop or independent café.

It doesn't fix Great Bridge's pedestrian links.

It doesn't magically populate a market.

It doesn't repair years of retail decline.

And it certainly doesn't explain why all of these problems were documented years ago.

Show us the numbers

This is where I become particularly suspicious.

Before the trial starts, Sandwell should publish the baseline.

How many stalls are currently occupied?

How many traders are there?

How much money are both markets losing?

What is the current footfall?

How many people use the car parks?

How much parking income will be lost?

How much market income will be lost?

What are the current vacancy rates?

And, most importantly:

What exactly constitutes success?

Because I don't want to reach August 2027 and receive another triumphant press release announcing that 9,472 people enjoyed free parking.

That tells us very little.

Did shop trade increase?

Did the markets retain new traders?

Did more businesses open?

Did vacancies fall?

Did people stay longer?

Did footfall increase?

Did Great Bridge finally capture some of the retail park trade?

Did Wednesbury Market actually become a market again?

Those are the tests.

So what SHOULD Sandwell be doing?

Wednesbury needs a proper commercial review of its market.

Not another cosmetic exercise.

Is it in the right place?

Is the layout right?

What do former traders say?

What businesses are missing from the town?

How do we attract them?

How do we use vacant units?

How do we make Union Street, Market Place and Morrisons work together?

And how do we create something people actually want to visit rather than admire briefly from the bus?

Great Bridge needs something even more obvious.

Connect the bloody town centre to the retail park.

Physically.

Visually.

Commercially.

Make it easy and attractive to walk between them.

Improve the shopfronts.

Recruit better independents.

Sort the market.

Create reasons to cross over from Asda.

And stop behaving as if “Great Bridge Retail Park” and “Great Bridge” just happen to share a postcode by coincidence.

Give the experiment a chance — but spare us the fanfare

I hope the free parking works.

I hope the free stalls attract traders.

I hope both town centres improve.

Seriously.

But I won't pretend this announcement suddenly represents a comprehensive regeneration plan.

Because Sandwell’s own evidence says these problems are deep, structural and have been known about for years.

The really interesting question isn't:

“Will free parking help?”

Of course it might.

The interesting question is:

How did two historic Sandwell town centres get into such a state that the Council is now having to GIVE AWAY market pitches to try to encourage people to trade there?

That's the story.

And I'll keep following it.

And this is only the beginning...

I'll update this article as new information becomes available — particularly market figures, losses, trader numbers, parking data, footfall and anything Sandwell publishes during the pilot.

I also intend to widen the exercise.

I'll be looking at other Sandwell towns, high streets, local centres and shopping areas in future.

Shop by shop.

Street by street.

Vacancies.

Takeaways.

Barbers.

Vape shops.

Bookmakers.

Independents.

Markets.

Public realm.

Parking.

And, importantly, what taxpayers have already paid for in the name of “regeneration”.

Because perhaps the best way to judge whether Sandwell’s town centres are improving isn't another glossy strategy document.

Perhaps we should just go and look at them.

More to come.

#Sandwell #Wednesbury #GreatBridge #SandwellCouncil #Markets #HighStreet #TownCentre #Regeneration #ShopLocal

 

710 Pages. One Cabinet Meeting. Is This Democracy… or an Endurance Test?

There's confidence.

There's optimism.

There's wishful thinking.

And then there's believing that elected councillors can properly scrutinise 710 pages of reports, challenge officers, understand every financial implication, ask intelligent questions and make informed decisions... all before one Cabinet meeting.

Welcome to Sandwell.

On Wednesday 15 July, Sandwell's Cabinet will meet to decide the future of services affecting every resident.

Housing.

Roads.

Schools.

SEND.

Anti-social behaviour.

Council finances.

Regeneration.

Pride in Place.

Housing contracts.

School capital.

Corporate performance.

Millions upon millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

All wrapped up in a 710-page agenda pack.

Not a typo.

Seven hundred and ten pages.

If you fancy having a look yourself—and I genuinely admire your optimism—you can find the agenda here:

Sandwell Cabinet Meeting – 15 July 2026 Agenda

Bring coffee.

Possibly an oxygen tank.

War and Peace? Lightweight.

To put 710 pages into perspective...

You could read George Orwell's 1984.

Then Animal Farm.

Have a sandwich.

Walk the dog.

Cut the grass.

Come back...

...and you'd probably still have another risk register or appendix to get through.

I've seen fewer pages in university dissertations.

I've bought shorter Haynes manuals.

The old Argos catalogue was less intimidating.

At this rate Cabinet Members won't need tablets...

...they'll need forklifts.

Transparency? Or Death by PDF?

Whenever residents complain that councils aren't transparent, the stock answer usually goes something like this:

"Everything is publicly available."

Technically...

Yes.

So are the complete Hansard archives.

Publishing information isn't the same as making it understandable.

Uploading 710 pages to a website doesn't automatically make a council open.

Sometimes it just makes it harder for anyone to see what's actually happening.

It's a bit like hiding a needle...

...inside another needle...

...inside a haystack.

Let's Be Honest... Nobody Can Properly Read This

Here's the uncomfortable truth.

No Cabinet Member can realistically:

• read 710 pages;

• understand every legal implication;

• digest every financial risk;

• challenge every recommendation;

• compare every appendix with previous reports;

• carry out ward casework;

• answer residents;

• attend meetings;

• hold down a job;

• have something resembling a family life...

...and still turn up fully prepared to debate nineteen substantial reports.

Not Labour.

Not Reform.

Not Conservatives.

Not Independents.

Nobody.

If anyone says they've absorbed every page cover to cover in the time available, they either possess superhuman powers...

...or they're bluffing.

This Isn't Scrutiny. It's Survival.

Cabinet exists for one reason.

To scrutinise.

To challenge.

To test assumptions.

To ask awkward questions.

To say:

"Hang on... have we actually thought this through?"

Instead, meetings increasingly risk becoming:

Approved.

Approved.

Approved.

Noted.

Delegated.

Approved.

Next item.

By page 642 even the strongest councillor is probably wondering whether they accidentally enrolled on an Open University degree in municipal administration.

Meanwhile... Buried Somewhere Around Page 300...

Hidden amongst the mountain of paperwork is something rather inconvenient.

The Council's own performance report.

And guess what?

It's hardly a glowing report card.

Dozens of performance indicators remain red.

Housing is struggling.

Customer services are struggling.

SEND remains under pressure.

Complaints remain high.

Some indicators have stayed red quarter after quarter.

These aren't opposition figures.

They're the Council's own figures.

Yet instead of seeing an overwhelming focus on fixing those problems...

...we get another action plan.

Another strategy.

Another framework.

Another transformation programme.

Another governance structure.

At this rate Sandwell produces more strategies than Netflix produces documentaries.

The Great Delegation Machine

Another phrase appears so often in these reports that it deserves its own loyalty card.

"Delegated Authority."

Approve the principle...

Delegate the detail...

Report back later...

Maybe.

It's becoming Cabinet Bingo.

Tick them off as you go:

☑ Approve

☑ Delegate

☑ Endorse

☑ Framework

☑ Transformation

☑ Partnership

☑ Review

☑ Action Plan

House!

Now, delegation has its place.

No council could function without it.

But there comes a point where residents are entitled to ask:

Exactly what is Cabinet deciding... and what is being quietly handed over afterwards?

Because if every major decision ends with "delegated to officers", what exactly is the democratic value of Cabinet beyond approving the cover sheet?

Quantity Isn't Quality

Somewhere in local government a strange myth has taken hold.

That the thicker the agenda...

...the better the governance.

Rubbish.

A 710-page agenda isn't evidence of openness.

It's evidence of a system drowning in its own paperwork.

Good governance isn't measured in kilograms.

It's measured by whether elected Members have enough time to understand what they're voting on.

Here's a Crazy Suggestion...

Split the agenda.

Hold another Cabinet meeting.

Prioritise genuinely urgent business.

Publish proper executive summaries.

Give Members the chance to actually read, think and challenge.

Because if decisions affecting hundreds of millions of pounds can't justify an extra meeting...

...what exactly can?

The Bigger Problem

This isn't about whether the reports are good or bad.

Many of them contain worthwhile proposals.

This is about whether the process itself is fit for purpose.

Democracy doesn't become stronger because you've uploaded more PDFs.

It becomes stronger when elected Members have the time, confidence and information to properly scrutinise what's put in front of them.

Right now, it feels as though scrutiny is being buried under paperwork.

Not deliberately perhaps.

But effectively.

And there's an old saying...

If you want to hide something, hide it in plain sight.

Or, in local government...

Hide it somewhere around page 487.

One Final Thought

If I handed a university student 710 pages on Monday and expected a properly researched dissertation by Wednesday, they'd laugh.

If I handed a barrister 710 pages the day before a trial, they'd ask the judge for an adjournment.

If I handed a surgeon 710 pages before an operation, you'd probably ask for a second opinion.

Yet somehow we expect councillors—many with full-time jobs, businesses, caring responsibilities and hundreds of residents relying on them—to digest 710 pages of highly technical reports before making decisions affecting every household in Sandwell.

Then we wonder why public confidence in local government isn't exactly soaring.

Good governance isn't about seeing how many reports can be crammed into one meeting. It's about giving elected Members the time, information and confidence to properly challenge decisions before they're made.

If we genuinely want stronger democracy in Sandwell, we need stronger scrutiny—not simply bigger agenda packs.

Because at the moment, this doesn't look like robust local democracy.

It looks like a speed-reading competition sponsored by the printer toner industry... with accountability buried somewhere between Appendix 14 and Annex C.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #Cabinet #LocalGovernment #Democracy #Scrutiny #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #Housing #SEND #Regeneration #CouncilFinance #CommunityVoice #LocalPolitics

Sandwell’s Local Plan: Homes, Jobs, Wages, Green Space — And A Warning To Reform

Sandwell’s Local Plan: Homes, Jobs, Wages, Green Space — And A Warning To Reform

There is a dangerous little trick in local politics.

Take something complicated. Wrap it in officer language. Call it a “Local Plan”. Add a few glossy maps, some consultation boards, a couple of buzzwords about growth, sustainability and opportunity — and hope the public glaze over before they realise what is actually being decided.

Because make no mistake, Sandwell’s Local Plan is not just a planning document.

It is a map of who gets listened to.
Who gets built over.
Who gets the jobs.
Who gets the traffic.
Who gets the low wages.
Who gets the warehouses.
Who loses the green space.
And who is expected to shut up and be grateful afterwards.

Sandwell Council says the Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on 11 December 2024, with an independent examination now under way, and the council’s own timetable points towards adoption in summer 2026. The Main Modifications consultation has already been and gone, running from 16 February to 30 March 2026. So this is not some distant academic exercise. This is live. This is now. This is the rulebook that developers, officers, inspectors and planning committees will be reaching for when the bulldozers start sniffing around.

And here is the blunt bit.

Sandwell needs homes. Of course it does.

But Sandwell also needs proper jobs. Better wages. Protected employment land. Apprenticeships. Skills. Transport. Schools. GPs. Drainage. Safe roads. Parks. Wildlife corridors. Green space. Brownfield regeneration. Empty homes brought back into use. Contaminated land cleaned up.

What Sandwell does not need is another round of “regeneration” where developers make the profit, residents get the traffic, green space disappears, employment land gets quietly sacrificed, and the council puts out a press release about “unlocking growth”.

We have heard that one before.

Sandwell Is Not A Blank Sheet For Developers

Sandwell is not some wealthy leafy borough moaning because someone wants to build a few houses near a nice view.

Sandwell is one of the most deprived places in the country. Sandwell Trends records the borough as the 19th most deprived local authority out of 296 on the 2025 deprivation score, and says large areas of Smethwick, Tipton, Wednesbury and West Bromwich are heavily deprived.

That matters.

Because in a borough like Sandwell, planning is not just about bricks. It is about poverty. Health. Opportunity. Mobility. Access. Wages. Life chances.

The ONS local labour data shows Sandwell’s employment rate at 69.8% for people aged 16 to 64, lower than the West Midlands rate of 75.2%. Sandwell’s unemployment rate was 6.0%, higher than the West Midlands rate of 4.4%, and economic inactivity was 25.7%, higher than both the West Midlands and Great Britain rate of 21.2%.

So when someone waves around a shiny Local Plan and says “new homes” and “new jobs”, the proper Sandwell answer should be:

What homes?
Where?
For whom?
At what price?
What jobs?
What wages?
What skills?
What transport?
What infrastructure?
And who pays when it all goes wrong?

Because “jobs” can mean skilled manufacturing, apprenticeships, engineering, green industry, construction, retrofit, repair, local SMEs and proper wage progression.

Or it can mean low-wage sheds, zero-hours work, agency labour, fast food strips, car washes, storage units and another dead-edge industrial estate that looks like it was designed by someone who hates human beings.

Let us not pretend they are the same.

Employment Land: The Bit They Hope You Don’t Notice

Everyone shouts about housing numbers. Fewer people notice the employment land.

That is a mistake.

Once employment land is gone, it is usually gone for good. A workshop becomes flats. A small industrial estate becomes “residential-led regeneration”. A site that could have supported apprenticeships, trades, manufacturing or local businesses becomes another box-ticking development with a token café and three hanging baskets.

Then ten years later, councillors look puzzled and ask why local people have to travel further for poorer jobs.

Well, perhaps because the land for proper work was sold, rezoned, neglected, or quietly handed over to the housing machine.

Sandwell must not let that happen.

The test should be simple:

Before any employment land is released for housing, Sandwell Council must prove it is genuinely surplus to future economic need.

Not inconvenient.
Not underused because the council failed to invest.
Not unattractive because access, security, drainage, power or broadband were neglected.
Not “better as housing” because the developer’s spreadsheet prefers it.

Genuinely surplus.

And if it is not genuinely surplus, protect it, improve it, and use it to build the Sandwell economy properly.

Green Space Is Not Spare Land

The same applies to green space.

Sandwell’s parks, nature reserves, informal greens, wildlife corridors, former playing fields, canal edges and open spaces are not spare bits left over for the planning department to colour in.

They are public health infrastructure.
They are flood buffers.
They are children’s breathing space.
They are wildlife routes.
They are community assets.
They are mental health support without a waiting list.

The Community Planning Alliance councillor briefing warns against uncontrolled greenfield development, saying it can mean loss of farmland, habitats and valued green spaces, car-dependent sprawl, infrastructure pressure, weak affordable housing delivery and a democratic deficit.

That warning fits Sandwell like a glove.

We do not need lazy planning dressed up as necessity.

We need:

Brownfield first.
Empty homes first.
Vacant buildings first.
Town centres first.
Contaminated land cleaned up first.
Infrastructure first.
Green space last.

Not as a slogan. As a hard rule.

Infrastructure: No More “It’ll Come Later”

Residents know this game.

The developer promises the earth. Roads, schools, drainage, doctors, open space, cycle routes, affordable homes, jobs, buses, unicorns and a brass band.

Then the application gets approved.

Then comes “viability”.
Then comes “phasing”.
Then comes “subject to funding”.
Then comes “market conditions”.
Then comes “unforeseen circumstances”.
Then comes the traffic.
Then comes the school pressure.
Then comes the GP shortage.
Then comes the flooding.
Then comes the council telling residents it is all very complicated.

No.

Major developments should come with hard, enforceable infrastructure conditions.

The CPA briefing points to Grampian conditions — planning conditions that can stop development starting, or stop later phases or occupation, until specific infrastructure is delivered. It says these can be used for roads, schools, GP surgeries, water supply and sewage capacity.

Sandwell should be using that logic ruthlessly.

No infrastructure, no occupation.
No school capacity, no phase two.
No drainage proof, no diggers.
No GP capacity, no hand-waving.
No highways solution, no consent.

That is not anti-growth.

That is pro-resident.

And Now A Warning To Reform

Reform now controls Sandwell Council.

That means the easy bit is over.

Opposition is easy.
Facebook posts are easy.
Campaign leaflets are easy.
Blaming Labour is easy — and after decades of Labour control, there is plenty to blame.

But control is different.

Now Reform will be judged on what it does, not just what it says.

And on the Local Plan, planning, green space, jobs, wages and regeneration, the judgement will come quickly.

If Reform simply waves through the same officer assumptions, the same tired consultation habits, the same developer-friendly language, the same weak transparency, and the same “we know best” culture, residents will notice.

Fast.

This is where Reform has to prove it is not just a change of rosettes on the same old machine.

It must involve people.
It must engage residents.
It must publish the evidence.
It must explain the trade-offs.
It must listen before decisions are cooked.
It must not hide behind officers.
It must not treat scrutiny as an irritation.
It must not treat objectors as troublemakers.

And yes — it must involve the awkward squad.

Especially the awkward squad.

Because every council needs people who ask the uncomfortable questions. The people who read the reports. The people who spot the missing appendix. The people who know the history. The people who remember what was promised last time. The people who ask why a green space is suddenly “underused”. The people who ask why employment land is being lost. The people who ask why wages are not mentioned. The people who ask where the GP capacity is. The people who ask whether consultation was real or theatre.

Those people are not the enemy.

They are the early warning system.

Ignore them, and Reform will very quickly discover that Sandwell residents did not vote for a new administration just to get the old habits in a different wrapper.

The Sandwell Test

The test for the Local Plan should be clear.

Does it protect green space?

Does it prioritise brownfield land?

Does it bring empty homes and vacant buildings back into use?

Does it protect proper employment land?

Does it create jobs Sandwell people can actually access?

Does it raise wages, or just count low-paid jobs as “growth”?

Does it force infrastructure before occupation?

Does it protect deprived communities from being dumped on again?

Does it treat consultation as democracy, not decoration?

Does it involve residents early enough to matter?

Does it publish evidence in plain English?

Does it make developers prove local benefit?

If the answer is no, the plan is not good enough.

Sandwell Deserves Better Than Managed Decline

Sandwell has been poor for too long.

Too many people have accepted low wages as normal.
Too many communities have been told to be grateful for scraps.
Too much land has been neglected until someone can make money from it.
Too many decisions have been made over residents’ heads.
Too many consultations have felt like theatre.
Too many green spaces have been eyed up as development opportunities.
Too many schemes have arrived with promises, then left residents with consequences.

That has to stop.

Sandwell needs homes, yes.

But it also needs proper jobs, better wages, skills, apprenticeships, employment land, green space, clean land, good transport, working infrastructure, honest consultation and political courage.

The Local Plan must not lock poverty in for another generation.

And Reform, now in control, needs to understand this very clearly:

Residents will not wait four years to judge you.

They will judge you by whether you open the doors, publish the evidence, involve the awkward squad, protect communities, challenge lazy assumptions, and stop the developer-first culture that has failed Sandwell for far too long.

Because if the new lot behave like the old lot, people will say so.

Loudly.

And some of us have had plenty of practice.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellLocalPlan #ReformSandwell #GreenSpace #BrownfieldFirst #EmploymentLand #JobsAndWages #Regeneration #LocalDemocracy #Planning #Deprivation #CommunityEngagement #AwkwardSquad #Transparency #Accountability

Sandwell’s Big Theme Machine: Same Council Fog, New Political Test for Reform

Sandwell’s Big Theme Machine: Same Council Fog, New Political Test for Reform

Sandwell Council has apparently organised itself around five shiny theme areas:

Growing up in Sandwell.
Living in Sandwell.
Healthy in Sandwell.
Thriving Economy in Sandwell.
One Council One Team.

Lovely.

It sounds like the sort of thing you would find on a council PowerPoint, probably with soft colours, smiling stock images and a diagram involving arrows pointing confidently at each other.

But as ever with Sandwell, the question is not whether the words sound nice.

The question is: who is actually responsible when things go wrong?

Because residents do not live inside corporate themes. They live with broken housing repairs, unanswered complaints, dirty streets, neglected parks, ASB, SEND pressures, confusing consultations, planning decisions they struggle to influence, and the familiar Sandwell experience of being passed from one department to another like an unwanted parcel.

The council says its current plan runs to 2027 and is built around four strategic themes — Growing up, Living, Healthy and Thriving Economy — all underpinned by One Council One Team.

That may be the official structure.

But the lived reality for many residents is much simpler:

One Council.
Many departments.
Endless confusion.
No obvious owner.

And that is the first big test for the new Reform-controlled council.

The themes sound neat. The council underneath does not.

On paper, the themes are easy enough to understand.

Growing up in Sandwell should cover children, education, safeguarding, SEND, school attendance, young people and corporate parenting.

Living in Sandwell should cover the things residents see and feel every day: housing, repairs, parks, waste, fly-tipping, street cleaning, ASB, neighbourhoods and community safety.

Healthy in Sandwell should cover adult social care, public health, carers, health inequalities, prevention and vulnerable residents.

Thriving Economy in Sandwell should cover regeneration, jobs, business, town centres, planning, investment, infrastructure and the local economy.

One Council One Team should be the glue holding it all together: governance, finance, complaints, customer services, scrutiny, transformation, culture and performance.

So far, so sensible.

But then we reach Sandwell reality.

Services do not sit neatly in one box. Damp and mould is housing, health, children’s welfare, adult social care, repairs, complaints and sometimes legal risk. ASB can be housing, police, neighbourhoods, youth services, public protection and community safety. SEND transport can involve children’s services, education, finance, procurement, transport contracts, families and schools.

So when the council says “One Council One Team”, residents are entitled to ask:

Does that mean joined-up action?
Or does it mean everyone is involved and nobody is responsible?

Because Sandwell has been here before.

Many times.

With a lanyard.

Red flag one: portfolio churn

Cabinet portfolios are supposed to help residents and councillors understand political responsibility.

Who owns housing?
Who owns parks?
Who owns ASB?
Who owns regeneration?
Who owns SEND?
Who owns complaints?
Who owns the resident journey when the system fails?

But when portfolios keep changing, titles shift, responsibilities move, and services are grouped and regrouped under different political headings, public accountability becomes foggy.

One year it is environment. Then neighbourhoods. Then leisure. Then place. Then community. Then regeneration. Then some grander title with “inclusive” or “sustainable” added for decoration.

The council’s Cabinet papers make clear that Cabinet Members have defined portfolio responsibilities.

Fine.

But defined for whom?

For officers who already understand the internal structure?
For councillors who sit through briefings?
Or for the resident trying to work out who is responsible for the park, the fly-tip, the repair, the noise nuisance, the dangerous alleyway or the ignored complaint?

Because if a resident needs a municipal treasure map to find accountability, the structure is already failing.

Red flag two: senior officer churn and directorate reshuffling

This is not just political. It is managerial too.

Sandwell has been through government intervention, commissioner oversight, post-intervention recovery, senior leadership restructuring, directorate changes, service director changes and now a full political change of control.

Government intervention began in March 2022 and ended in March 2024.

That is not ancient history. That is still recent in council terms.

The council itself was still talking in March 2026 about post-intervention improvement and its ambition to continue improving after the end of intervention.

So let us be honest.

Reform has not taken over a stable, simple, well-understood council machine.

It has inherited a council that has spent years rearranging itself, explaining itself, rebuilding itself, reviewing itself and congratulating itself for improving itself.

Now add new political leadership, new Cabinet appointments, new scrutiny dynamics, many new councillors and a public expecting change.

That is not a smooth handover.

That is a governance stress test.

Red flag three: “Place” risks becoming the council’s everything drawer

The word Place sounds harmless.

In council language, however, it often means: “We have put half the visible council under one enormous heading and good luck finding the exact bit you need.”

Housing? Place.
Regeneration? Place.
Parks? Place.
Waste? Place.
Public protection? Place.
Assets? Place.
Town centres? Place.
Planning-related growth? Place.
Environment? Place.

Wonderful.

Just chuck it all in Place.

That may suit internal management charts, but it does not help residents unless the council clearly explains who owns each service inside that huge directorate.

If everything is Place, then Place risks becoming the black hole where accountability goes to have a little lie down.

Reform should demand service-level accountability immediately.

Not “Place will look at it”.

Not “this sits within the wider operating model”.

Not “this aligns with the Council Plan”.

A name.
A portfolio.
A director.
A performance measure.
A public update.

That is the minimum.

Red flag four: performance language can hide failure

Sandwell’s themes should not become a soft cushion for poor performance.

The council says it monitors performance against the Council Plan themes.

Good.

Then publish it in a way residents can understand.

Not a maze of PDFs.
Not obscure committee packs.
Not polished summaries where the bad news is buried under seventeen paragraphs of “progress continues”.

Residents need to see:

What is green?
What is amber?
What is red?
What is getting worse?
Who owns it?
What is the recovery plan?
When will it be fixed?

If housing repairs are poor, say so.

If SEND is under pressure, say so.

If adult social care is struggling, say so.

If regeneration projects are slipping, say so.

If complaints are increasing, say so.

If FOIs are late, say so.

If residents keep reporting the same failures, say so.

The public is not stupid. What annoys people is not just failure. It is failure wrapped in corporate optimism and served with a side order of “lessons will be learned”.

Red flag five: intervention may have ended, but culture does not change by press release

Sandwell leaving government intervention was obviously significant. The council said in March 2024 that ministers had confirmed intervention would end.

Good.

But ending intervention does not magically fix culture.

It does not automatically fix scrutiny.

It does not automatically fix transparency.

It does not automatically fix resident engagement.

It does not automatically fix weak communication.

And it certainly does not mean the new controlling party should simply accept every officer assurance with a grateful smile and a complimentary biscuit.

Reform must remember this:

A council can leave intervention and still retain old habits.

The language may improve.
The charts may improve.
The reports may improve.
The culture may still resist challenge.

That is why the new administration must get to grips with accountability immediately.

Red flag six: Annual Council is not just ceremonial

The Annual Council meeting on 26 May 2026 includes the election of the Leader and approval of executive arrangements, Cabinet portfolios and appointments for 2026/27.

This matters.

Because this is where Reform either starts to clear the fog — or adds another layer to it.

The new Cabinet portfolios must be understandable to the public.

Residents should not have to guess whether a problem belongs to Housing, Environment, Neighbourhoods, Community Safety, Place, Public Health, Customer Services, Regeneration or “One Council One Team”.

The new administration should publish a simple Who Owns What guide.

Not eventually.
Not after a review.
Not when the transformation programme has finished transforming the transformation.

Now.

What Reform needs to do quickly

Reform has won control. That is the easy bit compared with actually running the place.

Now it needs to prove it can govern.

And the first test is clarity.

Reform should demand a public “Who Owns What” map

For every major resident-facing service, the public should be able to see:

Cabinet Member.
Senior officer.
Directorate.
Scrutiny route.
Public contact route.
Performance indicators.
Current red risks.

Housing repairs.
Damp and mould.
Parks.
Waste.
Fly-tipping.
ASB.
SEND.
School transport.
Adult social care.
Public health.
Regeneration.
Planning.
Complaints.
FOI.
Customer services.

Name the owner.

Then publish the performance.

Then update it.

That is not revolutionary. It is basic democratic accountability.

Which is probably why Sandwell has historically found it so difficult.

Reform must not fall into Labour’s old trap

The old Labour machine in Sandwell loved the language of plans, partnerships, strategies, boards, frameworks and reviews.

Everything was always being aligned, embedded, strengthened, developed, refreshed or transformed.

Meanwhile, residents were often left asking the same question:

Who is actually sorting this?

Reform must not simply put new names on the same fog.

Do not rename portfolios unless residents can understand them.

Do not accept “cross-cutting” as an answer.

Do not allow “partnership working” to become a hiding place.

Do not let Place become an accountability warehouse.

Do not let officers bury red risks in polished reports.

Do not let public commitments vanish when personnel change.

Do not let scrutiny become a theatre of polite nodding.

And above all, do not confuse being in control of the council chamber with being in control of the council machine.

They are not the same thing.

The big danger for Reform

Reform has a majority, but it also has a lot of new councillors, a steep learning curve and residents expecting visible change fast.

If Reform does not grip the council structure quickly, officers will run rings around them with process.

Not necessarily maliciously. That is just what large organisations do. They absorb change, slow it down, translate it into internal language, and send it to a board to be reviewed by a group that reports to another group.

Then, three months later, everyone agrees that “progress is being made”.

Residents, meanwhile, are still waiting for the repair, the answer, the clean-up, the enforcement, the transport, the decision, the callback.

Reform needs to get ahead of that.

The first demand should be simple:

Show us the red risks.
Show us the missed targets.
Show us the complaints.
Show us the officer owners.
Show us the Cabinet owners.
Show us the recovery plans.
Show us what residents can see publicly.

No fog.
No waffle.
No corporate incense.

The test is brutally simple

Can a resident look at Sandwell Council’s website and understand who is responsible for a service?

Can a councillor quickly find the officer owner for a problem?

Can a scrutiny board see what is red, what is worsening and what is being done?

Can a community group track promises made to them?

Can a tenant see housing repair performance?

Can a parent see SEND transport accountability?

Can residents see whether regeneration promises are actually being delivered?

If the answer is no, then the themes are not accountability.

They are wallpaper.

Final word

Sandwell’s themes may sound pleasant enough.

Growing up.
Living.
Healthy.
Thriving.
One Council One Team.

Very nice.

But Sandwell does not need another collection of cheerful headings.

It needs visible responsibility.

It needs public dashboards.

It needs named owners.

It needs proper scrutiny.

It needs honest red-risk reporting.

It needs residents to stop being bounced around a system that appears to understand itself far better than it serves the public.

Reform now has the wheel.

The question is whether it will drive the council — or be driven by it.

Because if “One Council One Team” means joined-up action, brilliant.

But if it means everyone involved and nobody accountable, then residents will quickly discover that Sandwell has not changed at all.

It has simply changed the badge on the fog machine.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellPolitics #ReformSandwell #LocalGovernment #CouncilAccountability #OneCouncilOneTeam #GrowingUpInSandwell #LivingInSandwell #HealthyInSandwell #ThrivingEconomyInSandwell #HousingRepairs #SEND #Regeneration #PublicServices #LocalDemocracy #Scrutiny #Governance #ResidentsFirst

February in Sandwell: A Month of Transparency, Accountability… and Other Mythical Creatures

February in Sandwell: A Month of Transparency, Accountability… and Other Mythical Creatures

If you felt a slight tremor throughout February, don’t worry — it wasn’t an earthquake. It was simply the sound of filing cabinets slamming shut, minutes going missing, consultations expanding to Tolstoy-length proportions, and accountability sprinting in the opposite direction at Olympic speed.

Yes, February was another banner month in Sandwell — a place where things are always “under review,” questions are “noted,” and outcomes are “subject to future consideration,” which is bureaucratic dialect for “please stop asking.”

🏛️ Governance: Now You See It, Now You Don’t

Transparency was clearly a major priority — in the same way camouflage is a major priority for chameleons.

Meetings happened. Decisions were made. Discussions occurred. Records? Ah, well, that would spoil the mystery.

Nothing says robust democratic oversight quite like:

• Scrutiny meetings without minutes
• Private briefings about public matters
• Decisions attributed to nobody in particular
• Questions answered by answering a completely different question

At this point, if accountability were a person, it would have been reported missing and last seen boarding a bus out of town.

👶 Safeguarding & SEND: Everything Is Fine (Please Stop Looking)

Children’s services featured prominently — which is reassuring, because nothing comforts the public more than complex structural reform combined with phrases like “transformation programme” and “new delivery model.”

Key developments included:

• Family homes quietly becoming children’s homes
• SEND reform that promises everything except clarity
• Historic safeguarding failures discussed in the abstract tense
• Legal duties acknowledged in theory

The official position appears to be:
“Mistakes may have occurred, lessons will be learned, and nobody specific was responsible.”

A bold strategy. Let’s see how that plays out.

💰 Finance: The Numbers Add Up — Just Not Together

Budget discussions were another highlight, proving once again that numbers are wonderfully flexible when placed inside PowerPoint slides.

Regeneration spending was celebrated. Footfall was celebrated. Initiatives were celebrated. Value for money was… quietly escorted out of the room.

Meanwhile residents were reassured that:

• There is no alternative
• Tough choices must be made
• Savings are necessary
• New spending is also necessary

Economists may struggle to explain this model, but locally it’s known as “Schrödinger’s Budget” — both broke and spending at the same time.

🏗️ Planning & Environment: Building a Better Future (Somewhere Else)

The Local Plan arrived weighing approximately the same as a medium-sized microwave oven and about as user-friendly.

Residents were invited to read hundreds upon hundreds of pages to understand proposals that could reshape their communities for decades — a thoughtful touch, ensuring only those with unlimited time, legal training, and industrial quantities of coffee could participate.

Key themes included:

• Protecting green space by building on it
• Improving health outcomes by increasing pollution exposure
• Supporting communities by fundamentally altering them
• Consultation exercises designed to test eyesight and patience

It’s planning, but with a strong element of endurance sport.

🏢 Networking, Appointments & Influence: Pure Coincidence, Obviously

February also delivered a masterclass in professional networking — or as cynics might call it, “politics but indoors.”

Appointments, connections, career pathways, and organisational overlap raised eyebrows, questions, and occasionally blood pressure.

Of course, everything was entirely above board, entirely appropriate, and entirely coincidental — much like finding three former colleagues suddenly working together again in positions of influence.

Just one of those things.

⚖️ Rule of Law: Flexible, Like Yoga

Legal obligations were discussed frequently, usually in the same tone one uses when discussing optional gym memberships.

Technically binding, yes — but surely open to interpretation, creative scheduling, and the occasional administrative misunderstanding.

After all, laws are important. That’s why we talk about them so much instead of, say, following them in a straightforward manner.

🏘️ Regeneration: If You Say It Often Enough…

West Bromwich regeneration continued to be celebrated enthusiastically, proving that optimism is a renewable resource.

Footfall increased — possibly because the previous baseline involved tumbleweeds.
Events were popular — especially the free ones.
Success was declared — pending further evidence.

Residents wondering why their daily experience doesn’t match the glossy narrative were encouraged to focus on the bigger picture, preferably from a safe distance.

🧾 Meanwhile, In the Real World…

Across the borough, people continued to deal with:

• Rising costs
• Reduced services
• Uncertainty about planning decisions
• Lack of clear information
• The lingering suspicion that nobody is actually steering the ship

But fear not. Another consultation is probably on the way.

🎭 The Grand Theme of the Month

If February had a slogan, it would be:

“Everything is under control, and if it isn’t, a working group will be formed.”

Or perhaps:

“Transparency — now available in invisible format.”

🔔 Final Thought

None of this is to say progress isn’t happening. On the contrary, things are moving constantly — sideways, backwards, diagonally, occasionally in circles, but moving nonetheless.

And if you still have questions, don’t worry.

They’ve been carefully noted, logged, reviewed, considered, reframed, redirected, escalated, and ultimately placed in the special filing system reserved for matters of ongoing interest.

You know the one.

#Sandwell #LocalGovernment #Accountability #Transparency #SEND #Safeguarding #LocalPlan #Budget #Regeneration #WestBromwich #FriarPark #Scrutiny #PublicInterest #Community

🏛️ The Public, West Bromwich: The “White Elephant” That Somehow Managed to Be Packed

🏛️ The Public, West Bromwich

The “White Elephant” That Somehow Managed to Be Packed

Ah yes.

The Public, West Bromwich.

That legendary civic disaster.

That infamous waste of money.

That building “nobody ever used”.

Except… they did.

In rather large numbers.

Repeatedly.

Right up until it was shut.

But let’s not let facts spoil a good myth.

🐘 The Great White Elephant Fairy Tale

If you’ve lived in Sandwell long enough, you’ll have heard it:

> “The Public was a white elephant. Nobody went. It failed.”

This statement is usually delivered confidently, with no evidence, and often by people who hadn’t been inside since the ribbon-cutting — if at all.

It’s one of those magical phrases that absolves everyone of responsibility while sounding terribly grown-up.

The problem is… it’s nonsense.

📊 Annoying Facts (Feel Free to Skip)

By the time politicians decided The Public had to go:

Around 451,000 people visited it in a single year

Over a million people used it across its lifetime

Visitor numbers were going up, not down

Galleries were programmed

Events calendars were full

Offices were occupied

The café was busy

People were actually… enjoying it

In other words, it was doing exactly what it was built to do — which, in Sandwell, is often a dangerous position to be in.

🎭 “Nobody Used It” (Apart From Everyone)

Let’s pause on this idea that nobody used it.

Apparently:

10,000 people a week don’t count

Tens of thousands at exhibitions don’t count

Families, students, shoppers, artists, and town-centre users don’t count

But one bloke down the pub saying “I never went” does.

Fascinating methodology.

🛍️ Shock Horror: It Worked With New Square

Another popular line:

> “It didn’t fit with the town centre.”

Which is odd, because once New Square opened, footfall at The Public jumped.

Turns out:

Shoppers like culture

Culture likes shoppers

People quite enjoy wandering into a gallery after Primark

Who knew?

Certainly not the people who later pretended this was all unforeseeable.

🔌 So Why Was It Really Closed?

Here’s the awkward bit.

The Public didn’t fail. It was closed.

That’s not semantics — it’s reality.

Closure was:

A political decision

A strategic choice

A risk-management call

It was not:

Because the building was empty

Because nobody cared

Because it “didn’t work”

You don’t euthanise something because it’s thriving.

You do it because it’s inconvenient.

🎓 And Then Came the College (Cue Fog Machine)

After closure, the building was handed over for sixth-form use.

We were told:

“This is sensible”

“This solves the problem”

“This secures the future”

What we were not given:

The full lease

The valuation

The schedules

The mysterious “Concordat”

Clear answers on who pays for what

A neat, end-to-end public account

FOIs have been submitted.

Answers have been… creative.

Transparency has remained in short supply.

But don’t worry — it’s probably all fine.

(It always is, until it isn’t.)

🚨 A Fun Detour: Peterborough

Just in case anyone thinks this is all ancient history and harmless fun, let’s pop over to Peterborough.

There, a council disposed of a public building occupied by a college for nominal consideration.

Years later, officers decided:

> “Hmm… this might actually be unlawful.”

Police got involved.

People got nervous.

Paperwork suddenly mattered again.

Different town.

Same legal duties.

Which proves a vital lesson:

👉 Public asset deals don’t become lawful just because everyone stops asking questions.

🧠 Myth vs Fact (Because Apparently We Still Need This)

Myth: The Public was a waste of money.

Fact: Hundreds of thousands used it every year.

Myth: It failed.

Fact: It was politically closed while busy.

Myth: It didn’t fit West Bromwich.

Fact: It complemented New Square exactly as designed.

Myth: The council walked away.

Fact: The building still lives quietly on balance sheets and risk registers.

Myth: “Move on.”

Fact: Governance doesn’t have a sell-by date.

🧾 So What’s the Actual Issue?

This isn’t about nostalgia.

It isn’t about art snobbery.

It isn’t about being anti-college.

It’s about this:

A multi-million-pound public asset

Closed while operationally successful

Transferred under opaque terms

With unclear liabilities

Questionable upkeep

And no clean public account

That’s not moaning — that’s basic accountability.

🏁 Final Thought

The Public wasn’t a white elephant.

It was a busy, functioning civic asset that became politically awkward, financially uncomfortable, and administratively inconvenient — so it was quietly rebranded as a failure to make the paperwork easier.

Until the documents are on the table, the myths will keep doing the heavy lifting.

And in Sandwell, myths are cheaper than transparency.

Funny that.

#ThePublic #WestBromwich #Sandwell #WhiteElephantMyth #PublicMoney #CouncilWatch #FollowThePaperwork #Transparency #FOI #Governance #LocalPolitics #Regeneration

Friar Park Millennium Centre, FPUV & The Levelling Up Machine: Who’s Really Being Levelled Up?

Friar Park’s New Gold Rush: Who Really Benefits?

You’d think Friar Park was about to become Monaco the way the PR machine is churning out glossy photos of diggers, hi-vis jackets and grinning councillors.
But behind the staged “community hub” narrative sits a very different story — one of political control, financial dependency, strategic opportunism and a breathtaking lack of transparency.

The Friar Park Millennium Centre (FPMC) is legally supposed to be non-political.
In reality, it has been welded so tightly to the Sandwell Labour machine you’d need industrial bolt cutters to separate them.

And now, with Friar Park Urban Village (FPUV) and the Wednesbury Levelling Up Partnership (WLUP) throwing millions around, the stakes are higher than ever — and so are the conflicts.

The Community Isn’t Buying It — FPUV Is Already Being Challenged

Let’s get this in early, because it matters:

The FPUV scheme is being challenged by residents AND by organised community campaigners.

Why?

Because:

• The consultation was threadbare
• Key information was withheld
• Residents were treated as an afterthought
• Environmental, access and safety concerns were brushed aside
• And the whole thing feels very much like a decision made behind closed doors long before the public were let in on it

So no — this is not a regeneration plan “backed by the community”.
It’s a regeneration plan being pushed at the community, and people are pushing back.

The Political Network Running the Millennium Centre

Let’s stop pretending FPMC is some neutral village hall.

For around 20 years it has been a political clubhouse for the same Labour network:

Cllr Simon Hackett

• Company Secretary (2004–2010)
• Director (2010–2024)
• Still a Charity Trustee today
• Holds political surgeries inside the building
• Tightly connected to the new Labour MP

The much-publicised “resignation” in 2024 was nothing but a paperwork shuffle.
He never left.
He simply moved seats.

Former Mayor Roy Handley MBE

A longstanding director and political ally.

A pipeline of Labour-friendly community operators

Always connected. Always revolving. Always in place.

This is not “community governance”.
This is institutional capture.

Follow the Money — It Always Tells the Truth

FPMC’s accounts show:

• Heavy dependency on public grants
• Payments from the Council and Police
• A building owned by the Council, but financially benefiting the charity
• A service-delivery footprint aligned with political interests
• Hundreds of thousands flowing annually

And then comes the headline:

**£2 Million of Levelling Up Cash

directly into a building controlled by political associates.**

This isn’t a community uplift.
It’s a community upgrade — for a select few.

WLUP: The Board That Controls the Money — And the Vanishing Chair

Welcome to the Wednesbury Levelling Up Partnership Board, where £20 million of public money is being allocated.

Originally chaired by Maria Jardine, a supposed “independent community voice”, she then mysteriously:

• disappeared from the membership list
• vanished from meeting minutes
• was replaced by Kallianne Titley
• all without a single public explanation

No statement.
No accountability.
No transparency.

Because why tell the public anything when you can just quietly reshuffle the deck?

Meanwhile, the Board now includes:

• Cllr Peter Hughes (Regeneration portfolio holder)
• Antonia Bance MP
• A trustee linked to the Centre
• A clutch of Labour councillors

Yes — the same people who benefit politically from FPMC’s expansion are the same people overseeing its funding.

But apparently this triggers zero declarations of interest.

Declarations of Interest: A Masterclass in Selective Amnesia

If you read the WLUP minutes, you’ll see something remarkable:

Almost no declarations of interest exist — despite mountains of conflicts.

A politically connected charity receiving millions?
No conflict.

Trustees sitting on the Board funding the building they oversee?
No conflict.

The MP sitting on a board steering money into a centre used as a Labour surgeries venue?
No conflict.

It’s magic.
Or, more accurately: it’s Sandwell.

The Quiet Operator: Anam Choudhury

Between 2017–2019, governance at FPMC was shaped by:

• Anamur (Anam) Choudhury
• Company Secretary
• Person With Significant Control
• Part of a familiar regeneration and community funding network

His presence highlights that the real action often happens off-stage, away from minutes and accountability.

NEW: The MP’s Misleading Letter — And Her Silence Since

This part is astonishing even by Sandwell standards.

After a meeting about the FPUV proposals, Antonia Bance MP sent representative a letter that:

• omitted key information
• misrepresented the nature of the meeting
• failed to address fundamental objections
• and raised more questions than answers

Residents wrote back asking her to clarify the inaccuracies.

She has not responded.
Not a word.

For an MP elected on promises of transparency, this silence is deafening — and telling.

What The Sandwell Skidder Has Already Reported

The independent Sandwell Skidder blog has, for years, documented:

• opaque building-use agreements
• questionable grant processes
• alleged misconduct by councillors
• a serious data-breach and housing controversy involving Hackett
• repeated failures of internal investigations
• the political capture of community assets

Whether every allegation was upheld is irrelevant.
The pattern is undeniable.

And that pattern is now resurfacing through WLUP and FPUV.

Why This All Matters (And Why Residents Shouldn’t Stay Silent)

Friar Park deserves regeneration that is:

• transparent
• fair
• competitive
• inclusive
• honest

What we’re getting instead is:

• a contested housing scheme
• selective consultations
• political control of community assets
• millions funnelled into one Labour-aligned hub
• a reshuffled WLUP board with no justification
• weak governance
• and an MP who won’t answer basic questions

This is not Levelling Up.
This is Levelling Over the residents who were supposed to be at the heart of it.

Questions Sandwell Council, WLUP and the MP Must Answer

1. Why was the WLUP Chair changed in secret?
2. Where are the full declarations of interest?
3. Why does a supposedly non-political charity host Labour surgeries?
4. Why is £2m going into one favoured building while other groups get nothing?
5. Why has Antonia Bance MP failed to answer questions about her misleading letter?
6. Why must residents challenge FPUV themselves?
7. Will the Council invite external scrutiny of WLUP and FPMC governance?

Until these questions are answered:

Residents are right to distrust this entire regeneration programme.

#Sandwell #FriarPark #MillenniumCentre #FPUV #LevellingUp #Wednesbury #WLUP #Governance #Transparency #PoliticalAccountability #Regeneration #SandwellLabour #CharityGovernance #CommunityCampaigners

See: Legal Notice and Disclaimer