Sandwell Council has published another News & Events Update, and once again there is quite a lot in it.

Sandwell Council has published another News & Events Update, and once again there is quite a lot in it.

Some of it is genuinely useful.

There is information about the council’s new telephone number, crisis payments, exam-results support, children’s activities, vaccinations, free swimming, water safety, the Local Plan consultation, Bikeability, town-centre regeneration and more.

And as I have said before, I am not interested in criticising Sandwell Council simply for the sake of it.

If something is good, say so.

If something is useful, promote it.

But being a critical friend also means asking whether the story being told quite matches the reality underneath it.

And in this latest bulletin, there are a few areas where that matters.

---

ONE COUNCIL NUMBER – A SENSIBLE MOVE

From 1 September, Sandwell Council is introducing one main telephone number for many of its services:

0121 569 7474

That should make things simpler for residents, particularly those who are not online or struggle with digital services.

The bulletin even encourages people to pass the number on to anyone they know who is not online.

That is welcome.

Not everyone wants an app.

Not everyone is comfortable filling in online forms.

And sometimes people simply need to speak to another human being.

The test will be what happens when someone actually rings it.

How long do people wait?

How many hang up?

Does the callback system work?

Are problems resolved at first contact?

One number is useful.

One number leading to three quarters of an hour listening to hold music is less so.

---

FREE PARKING: NICE SOUNDING POLICY, BUT WILL IT ACTUALLY WORK?

This is one area where I remain highly sceptical.

Sandwell is introducing up to two hours of free parking in selected Wednesbury and Great Bridge car parks, alongside free market-stall pitches for twelve months.

The council says the idea is to increase footfall and help struggling markets.

It sounds attractive.

Everybody likes the words:

FREE PARKING.

The problem is that Sandwell’s own evidence suggests parking charges are not the main reason these town centres are struggling.

Wednesbury’s own Masterplan identifies declining retail choice, online shopping, competition from retail parks and other centres, poor evening activity, public-realm issues and concerns around safety.

It also tells us something particularly important:

Footfall is already highest on market days.

So people are coming.

The bigger question is what they find when they get there.

Do they stay?

Do they spend?

Are there enough shops worth visiting?

Does the town centre feel safe and attractive?

Has moving the market affected pedestrian flows?

Those are much bigger issues than whether somebody saves £1.10 on parking.

Great Bridge is even more interesting.

Previous council studies actually identified ample parking as one of its strengths.

Its weaknesses included poor pedestrian connections, heavy traffic, tired public realm and the lack of integration between the traditional centre and the retail park.

Making parking free does not solve any of those things.

Neither does giving away market pitches.

If a trader cannot make enough money to justify a pitch costing around seven quid, the problem probably isn’t the seven quid.

The problem is likely to be not enough customers.

So yes, call it a pilot.

But before it begins, Sandwell should publish the baseline:

How many cars currently use the car parks?

How much income will be lost?

How many market stalls currently operate?

What is existing footfall?

What are shop vacancy rates?

What exactly will constitute success?

Otherwise, twelve months from now, almost anything can be described as a success.

More parked cars do not automatically mean more shoppers.

More free stalls do not automatically mean a thriving market.

This still looks very much like a sticking plaster on a much bigger wound.

---

FIRE WARNINGS: IMPORTANT — BUT THE COUNCIL HAS RESPONSIBILITIES TOO

The bulletin again warns residents about fires and barbecues on parks and open spaces.

Quite right too.

With the dry weather and recent fires, nobody should be lighting disposable barbecues or fires on nature reserves and public green spaces.

But this is where I think Sandwell needs to go considerably further.

We have already made the case for proper, modern and enforceable byelaws across Sandwell’s parks, Local Nature Reserves and water bodies.

Not a patchwork of signs.

Not a PSPO here and an old rule there.

A proper, understandable regulatory framework covering matters including:

fires;

wildlife protection;

fishing;

vehicles and e-bikes;

damage to habitats;

water safety;

camping;

littering;

dogs;

and other behaviour that can damage our green spaces.

And those rules need to be visible and actually enforced.

But fire safety is not only about telling residents what they must not do.

The council is the landowner and land manager.

So what are Sandwell’s wildfire management arrangements for its nature reserves?

Where are the risk assessments?

Where are the firebreaks and fuel breaks where they are environmentally appropriate?

How is vegetation managed during prolonged dry periods?

Can fire appliances gain proper access?

Are vulnerable boundaries next to homes properly protected?

What arrangements exist with West Midlands Fire Service?

We cannot simply wait until smoke appears over a reserve and then post another graphic saying:

“Please don’t light fires.”

Residents have responsibilities.

So does the council.

---

THE LOCAL PLAN: GOOD TO SEE IT PROMOTED — BUT CAN ORDINARY PEOPLE REALLY UNDERSTAND IT?

One thing I criticised in the previous News & Events bulletin was the absence of the Local Plan consultation.

This time it is there.

So credit where it is due.

The problem now is a different one.

The Local Plan is incredibly important.

It will help shape where homes are built, where employment land goes, what infrastructure is needed, how green space is protected and how Sandwell develops through to 2044.

But try explaining the consultation to someone who doesn’t spend their spare time reading planning documents.

Spatial strategy.

Site allocations.

Infrastructure capacity.

Green Belt.

Employment land.

Biodiversity.

Flood risk.

Blue and green infrastructure.

Planning constraints.

And just for extra fun, Sandwell already has another Local Plan which went through years of preparation and examination but still hasn’t formally been adopted, while Government has now required councils including Sandwell to begin another new-style Local Plan.

I suspect many residents will reasonably ask:

“Hang on — didn’t we just do one of these?”

And they would have a point.

Putting a link into a newsletter and saying “Have your say” is not enough.

If Sandwell genuinely wants ordinary residents involved, it needs to make the process understandable.

How about a short plain-English guide?

What is the Local Plan?

Why are we doing another one?

What can it actually change?

How might it affect my neighbourhood?

What does the council want me to comment on now?

Then produce simple information for each of Sandwell’s six towns.

Have face-to-face sessions in libraries and community venues.

Let residents speak to planning officers.

Show people maps they can actually understand.

Because at the moment developers, landowners and planning consultants know exactly how to respond to a Local Plan consultation.

The ordinary resident often does not.

A consultation can be technically open to everybody while still being practically dominated by the people who understand the system.

That is not meaningful engagement.

---

CRISIS PAYMENTS – THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT

One of the strongest parts of this bulletin is the promotion of Sandwell’s Crisis Payments.

Help may be available for people dealing with emergencies such as fire, flooding, domestic abuse, stolen money, essential household items breaking down or temporary gaps in income.

This is exactly the sort of service that needs putting in front of residents.

People often only discover support exists after they have already reached crisis point.

So more of this please.

Useful.

Practical.

And potentially very important to somebody reading it.

---

BIKEABILITY: TEACHING CHILDREN TO RIDE SAFELY IS A GOOD THING

The bulletin also celebrates more children receiving Bikeability training.

Apparently 2,752 pupils took part during 2025/26.

I have been critical of Active Travel schemes in Sandwell.

I remain critical of some of them.

But teaching children how to cycle safely is a completely separate matter.

I have taught children to ride bikes myself.

It is a useful life skill.

It builds confidence.

And children who cycle should know how to do it safely.

Supporting Bikeability does not mean automatically supporting every cycle lane or road redesign that subsequently comes along.

We are allowed a little nuance in public life.

Apparently.

---

TIPTON REGENERATION – NOW SHOW US WHETHER IT WORKS

The bulletin also reports completion of public-realm works around Owen Street in Tipton.

Improved pavements.

Lighting.

Bus stops.

Crossings.

Apprenticeship opportunities.

All positive enough.

But regeneration cannot ultimately be judged by photographs of new paving stones.

The real questions come later.

Did footfall increase?

Did businesses benefit?

Did people feel safer?

Did vacancies fall?

Did people actually spend more time in the town centre?

That is how regeneration should be judged.

Not simply:

“The work has finished.”

Completion is not the same thing as success.

---

ENERGY SWITCHING – WE’VE ASKED THE QUESTIONS

The bulletin also promotes Sandwell’s Switch Together Energy scheme.

Residents are being encouraged to register for collective energy purchasing, with the possibility of receiving a cheaper tariff.

It may prove worthwhile.

But similar schemes have appeared before and then quietly faded from view.

What we rarely see is the historic Sandwell evidence.

How many people registered?

How many actually switched?

What did they save?

How long did those savings last?

How did the tariffs compare with deals residents could have found elsewhere?

And what does the scheme cost the council?

We have now submitted questions on precisely those points.

If the results are good, publish them.

That would be the best advertisement the scheme could have.

---

SUMMER ACTIVITIES, SWIMMING AND HEALTH INFORMATION

There is plenty else in the bulletin worth supporting.

Free swimming.

Summer activities for children and young people.

SEND-inclusive youth provision.

Exam-results support.

Vaccination information.

Water-safety advice.

These are useful things to put in front of residents.

And this is worth remembering when criticising council communications.

A newsletter does not have to be controversial to be worthwhile.

Sometimes telling somebody where their child can swim for free is enough.

---

SO WHAT DO I MAKE OF THIS ONE?

Overall, I think this is actually a better News & Events bulletin than some previous editions.

There is more useful civic information.

The Local Plan consultation is finally being promoted.

There is crisis support.

There is public-health information.

There are services and activities residents can actually use.

But there are still recurring weaknesses.

Too often Sandwell communicates:

what it is doing

before properly demonstrating:

why it should work

and later

whether it actually did.

Free parking is perhaps the clearest example.

It sounds good.

It is easy to put on a leaflet.

But Sandwell’s own evidence suggests the problems facing Wednesbury and Great Bridge are much deeper.

Likewise, telling residents not to start fires is necessary.

But the council also needs robust byelaws, visible enforcement and proper wildfire management of the land it controls.

And telling residents to “Have Your Say” on the Local Plan is welcome.

But unless ordinary people can understand what they are being asked, consultation risks becoming an exercise largely for professionals, developers and the usual suspects.

Being a critical friend means being prepared to say:

That’s good.

That needs improving.

And sometimes:

I really don’t think that is going to work.

Sandwell is certainly getting better at telling residents what it is doing.

Now I want to see it get equally good at showing us:

why it chose a policy,

what evidence supported it,

what it cost,

what residents actually said,

and eventually...

whether it worked.

That is not asking too much.

That is simply what good local government should look like.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellNews #LocalGovernment #Transparency #Accountability #CriticalFriend #Wednesbury #GreatBridge #TownCentres #Markets #FreeParking #Regeneration #Tipton #OwenStreet #SandwellLocalPlan #HaveYourSay #PublicConsultation #Byelaws #Wildfire #FireSafety #NatureReserves #GreenSpaces #Bikeability #ActiveTravel #CrisisSupport #EnergySwitching #SEND #ValueForMoney

Sandwell Council has been busy again.

Sandwell Council has been busy again.

The latest Sandwell News & Events Update, issued on 14 August 2026, landed with the usual colourful mixture of useful public information, community activities, council achievements and enough things to do to keep most of us occupied until the clocks go back.

And, to be fair, there is quite a lot to like.

There are important warnings about deliberately started fires, advice around water safety, help for young people receiving exam results, vaccination information, free swimming, holiday activities, allotments, events, healthy-living opportunities and support services.

That is exactly what a council newsletter should be doing.

Nobody needs a 94-page committee report when what they actually want to know is whether the kids can swim for free on Tuesday afternoon.

So credit where credit is due.

But regular readers will know that I tend to suffer from a terrible affliction.

I read the small print.

And occasionally I even click the links.

Welcome to Sandwell's digital newspaper

First, a little housekeeping.

I originally thought we'd discussed this particular bulletin before.

We had.

Sort of.

It turns out “Your latest Sandwell news and events update” is essentially Sandwell Council's recurring GovDelivery newsletter title rather than the name of one particular campaign.

Think of it as the online cousin of the Sandwell Herald.

The format has been around for years and generally follows a familiar recipe:

Take one part useful information.

Add two cups of council activity.

Sprinkle generously with events.

Add councillors where available.

Finish with a photograph of something wholesome.

Bake until positive.

And, generally speaking, it works.

The interesting question is not whether councils should tell us what they are doing.

Of course they should.

The question is whether they tell us how well it worked as enthusiastically as they tell us that it happened.

Safer 6: lots happened

The latest bulletin celebrates Safer 6, Sandwell's six-week community-safety campaign.

The published headline figures are impressive enough:

50-plus events.

More than 5,000 people reached.

Seven partners involved.

That's certainly activity.

And there is plenty of genuine partnership work behind it involving the council, police, fire service, community organisations and others.

But here's my slightly boring question.

What does “5,000 people reached” actually mean?

Someone walked past a stall?

Someone accepted a leaflet?

Someone had a twenty-minute conversation?

Someone reported antisocial behaviour?

Someone received support?

Someone's neighbourhood subsequently became safer?

Those are very different things.

This isn't criticism of Safer 6.

It's actually an argument for showing us more.

Because:

50 events tells us what happened.

5,000 people reached tells us the size of the audience.

But neither necessarily tells us what changed.

So perhaps future Safer 6 reports could include:

What we did → What happened → What difference it made.

That would turn a good publicity figure into useful public accountability.

Meanwhile, Griff and Cooper have entered the building

One of the newsletter's stars is undoubtedly Trading Standards detection dogs Griff and Cooper, pictured visiting Sandwell Council House.

Apparently they received plenty of fuss.

Quite right too.

Any creature voluntarily entering a council building deserves a biscuit.

And I have absolutely no objection to councils occasionally communicating through something more entertaining than “Appendix 4B – Revised Corporate Risk Register”.

Dogs get attention.

Attention gets people reading.

That's communications.

But the really interesting story behind Griff and Cooper is enforcement.

How many operations?

How many premises?

How many illegal goods seized?

What value?

How many prosecutions, closures or other enforcement actions resulted?

Keep the dogs.

Just put the scoreboard underneath them.

Food waste – surprisingly solid

The newsletter also says that an average family could be wasting around £1,000 a year in food.

My first reaction was roughly:

“£1,000? Who's throwing away the lobster?”

But the figure stacks up against national food-waste research.

So fair play to Sandwell here.

The council is also running a Food Waste Survey, which seems perfectly reasonable.

The important bit comes later.

How many people responded?

Where were they from?

What did they say?

What changes as a result?

Because one of my recurring bugbears with public consultation is the phrase:

“Residents told us…”

Whenever I see that, my inner anorak immediately asks:

Which residents?

Three?

Thirty?

Three thousand?

And were two of them councillors?

Now for the curious omission

And this is where things get rather more interesting.

At the same time that the newsletter was promoting the Food Waste Survey, Sandwell had other significant consultations running.

Including the early consultation on the new Sandwell Local Plan.

For anyone unfamiliar with local government terminology, the Local Plan is rather important.

It deals with things such as:

housing;

development;

employment land;

infrastructure;

the environment;

climate;

healthy communities;

and broadly speaking what gets built where across Sandwell for years to come.

Rather more consequential than whether I've got three suspicious carrots in the bottom drawer of the fridge.

Yet the Local Plan consultation didn't feature in this particular general News & Events Update.

Nor, apparently, did the council's live housing Asset Management Delivery Strategy consultation, dealing with areas including repairs, maintenance, building safety, investment and value for money.

To be clear:

I am not alleging anybody deliberately hid them.

They may have been promoted elsewhere.

They may appear in another bulletin.

But from a critical-friend perspective this seems an obvious communications improvement.

Why not have a permanent section in every newsletter called:

HAVE YOUR SAY

And list every major live council consultation?

No hunting around.

No discovering it three days before closing.

No requiring residents to develop the investigative skills of Sherlock Holmes combined with someone who understands the council website search function.

Just put them there.

Every time.

Friday night at the market

The bulletin also advertises free live music at the new West Bromwich Indoor Market.

Again, I don't have an issue with that.

The redevelopment specifically set out to create more than simply rows of stalls. Food, culture, entertainment and activity were part of the concept.

That makes sense.

Town centres need reasons for people to stay rather than simply arrive, purchase one cabbage and immediately catch the bus home.

The question here is value for money.

After the programme has had time to establish itself, it would be useful to know:

Does Friday-evening footfall rise?

Do traders benefit?

Do people stay longer?

Does the food offer benefit?

What does the entertainment programme cost?

Because the right question isn't:

“Why are they putting singers in a market?”

It's:

“Is putting singers in the market helping make the town centre work?”

Very different question.

Community groups: give them their names back

One thing Sandwell has done rather well in some earlier newsletters is recognising the enormous contribution made by voluntary and community organisations.

That's important.

Councils don't deliver everything.

Nor should they.

Charities, residents' groups, faith organisations, volunteers, neighbourhood organisations, sports groups and local businesses often do tremendous work.

Sometimes council communications condense all of that into:

“The council and its partners…”

Poor old partners.

Years of volunteering and they've become two words at the end of a sentence.

Where community organisations genuinely helped deliver something, name them.

It costs nothing.

And “Sandwell Council enabled local organisations to deliver great things” is every bit as positive a story as:

“Sandwell Council did everything.”

Then there's the Sandwell Herald

The printed Sandwell Herald is the bigger, glossier relative of the email bulletin.

Again, there is plenty of genuinely useful material in it.

Safety information.

Events.

Services.

Activities.

Contact information.

Community initiatives.

But its corporate tone is noticeably stronger.

The Summer 2026 edition celebrates things including Safer 6, business activity, improvements, the council's national recognition and the new Cabinet.

Nothing inherently wrong with celebrating achievement.

The slightly delicate point following the May election is that much of Sandwell's performance during 2025/26 occurred before the new Reform administration took office.

So communications need to retain a little historical discipline.

Good inherited performance doesn't suddenly become something achieved since May.

Likewise, problems inherited in May weren't suddenly created by the new administration either.

A new administration inherits both the silverware and the washing-up.

What happens next is what it can properly be judged on.

Sandwell already shows it can do candour

Here's perhaps the most encouraging thing I found.

Some of Sandwell's specialist communications are actually considerably more open about challenges.

The council's SEND communications, for example, have acknowledged that despite progress there remains “a long way to go”, as well as discussing service pressure, workforce difficulties and financial constraints.

That's good communication.

It doesn't make the council look weak.

It makes the council look credible.

Residents don't expect everything to be perfect.

Most of us have met Sandwell.

What people increasingly want is:

What's going well?

What's going badly?

Why?

And what are you doing about it?

Imagine a little section in the News & Events Update:

HOW WE'RE DOING

✅ One thing improving.

⚠️ One thing requiring improvement.

🔧 What we're doing about it.

That might do more for public trust than another photograph of someone holding an oversized ceremonial cheque.

So is the newsletter any good?

Actually, yes.

That's probably not the conclusion some people expected.

The latest Sandwell News & Events Update contains plenty of genuinely useful information.

Someone may avoid starting a fire because of it.

Someone may seek help following difficult exam results.

A family may find free activities.

A child may receive a vaccination.

Someone may discover a community activity they didn't know existed.

That's meaningful public value.

My criticism is therefore not:

Stop telling us good things.

It is:

Tell us the whole story more often.

Tell us what happened.

Tell us how much happened.

Tell us what it cost where appropriate.

Tell us what changed.

Tell us who helped.

Tell us how many residents actually responded.

Tell us when something hasn't worked.

And please, if you're asking residents what Sandwell should look like for the next twenty years…

put the Local Plan consultation somewhere between the dogs and the Motown.

That shouldn't be too much to ask.

Because good council communications shouldn't simply leave residents thinking:

“Sandwell has been busy.”

They should leave us understanding:

“Sandwell has been busy, here's what it achieved, here's what didn't work, and here's where you can influence what happens next.”

That would make a pretty good newsletter.

And I promise Griff and Cooper can still have their photograph.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #SandwellNews #SandwellHerald #LocalGovernment #CouncilCommunications #Transparency #Accountability #CommunityEngagement #PublicConsultation #HaveYourSay #SandwellLocalPlan #Safer6 #CommunitySafety #WestBromwich #WestBromwichMarket #TradingStandards #ValueForMoney #SummerOfFun #VoluntarySector #CriticalFriend

Sandwell's September Paper Trail – A Few Things Worth Watching Before the Reports Land

Sandwell's September Paper Trail – A Few Things Worth Watching Before the Reports Land

There is an old habit in local government of waiting until a 300-page committee pack lands on the internet, usually accompanied by enough appendices to stun a medium-sized badger, before anyone starts asking what is actually going on.

So I'm trying something different.

Let's look at what is coming before the paperwork arrives.

Sandwell Council has published another Forward Plan, this one dated 4 August 2026, giving advance notice of decisions expected to come before Cabinet.

And there are already several items where I think residents, councillors and particularly those sitting on scrutiny committees should be sharpening their pencils.

Most are currently expected at the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday 9 September 2026.

This isn't an accusation that something is wrong.

It is something far more dangerous in Sandwell:

asking questions before the decision is made.

First up – how are the finances looking?

One of the big documents coming forward is the:

Q1 Budget Monitoring Report 2026/27

This is classed as a Key Decision.

Budget monitoring reports can appear mind-numbingly dull.

Forecast.

Variance.

Reprofiling.

Reserves.

Capital programme.

Another spreadsheet.

Another cup of tea.

But buried amongst those phrases is the answer to a much simpler question:

Is Sandwell actually spending taxpayers' money where it said it would, and is it delivering what it promised?

That matters particularly because previous financial reports have already highlighted substantial pressures involving SEND/high-needs funding, the Housing Revenue Account and Sandwell Children's Trust.

Earlier monitoring during 2025/26 showed significant pressure within the Dedicated Schools Grant and HRA, alongside the continuing financial implications surrounding the Children's Trust.

So when the new Q1 figures arrive, some fairly basic questions need answering.

Has the position improved?

Have new overspends appeared?

Are savings actually being delivered?

How much money is being taken from reserves?

And perhaps one of my favourites:

How much of the capital programme has actually been delivered?

Because there is a difference between:

"We have allocated £20 million to something"

and

"We actually built the thing."

Sandwell has previously had substantial capital budgets reprofiled into later years.

"Reprofiled", incidentally, is one of those wonderful council words.

In ordinary English it frequently means:

We didn't spend it when we said we were going to.

Let's see what September brings.

Treasury Management Outturn 2025/26

Another Key Decision is the Treasury Management Outturn for the last financial year.

Don't switch off.

Treasury management sounds like something conducted by three accountants in a locked cupboard beneath Oldbury Council House.

It isn't.

It deals with things including borrowing, investments, debt, interest and how the authority manages enormous amounts of public money.

I want to see:

- total borrowing;

- cost of borrowing;

- investment returns;

- compliance with prudential indicators;

- changes in debt;

- borrowing connected with the capital programme;

- and whether assumptions made when the budget was approved actually turned out to be correct.

If interest costs have increased, let's see them.

If borrowing has increased, explain why.

If investments performed better than expected, wonderful – tell us.

Transparency shouldn't only apply when the numbers are bad.

Housing Compliance Policies

Now this one immediately gets my attention.

Cabinet is expected to consider Compliance Policies, again as a Key Decision.

And there is some important history here.

Sandwell's Housing Improvement and Transformation Programme was developed following the Regulator of Social Housing's C3 regulatory judgement, which identified serious failings in the landlord service.

Previous scrutiny papers recorded issues including extremely poor historic asbestos survey compliance, electrical safety work, a repairs backlog and inadequate information about the condition of the housing stock.

The improvement programme itself specifically included:

reviewing compliance policies and procedures;

improving systems and data;

external and internal assurance;

staff competence;

and better controls to identify non-compliance risks.

So this isn't administrative housekeeping.

It goes directly to the question:

Has Sandwell now got proper control of housing safety and compliance?

When the papers appear I want to know exactly which policies are being approved.

I also want to know:

What remains outstanding?

What is still red or amber?

Are statutory inspections genuinely up to date?

Have historical gaps been completely resolved?

What does external assurance say?

And crucially:

Can Sandwell now evidence compliance properly rather than simply saying that it believes properties are compliant?

There is an important difference.

Community Safety Strategy 2026–2030

Another significant item is the proposed Sandwell Community Safety Strategy 2026–2030, also identified as a Key Decision and expected at Cabinet on 9 September.

This should be interesting.

Because residents don't experience "community safety strategies".

They experience:

antisocial behaviour;

drug dealing;

illegal motorcycles;

shoplifting;

town-centre disorder;

fly-tipping;

criminal damage;

street drinking;

car crime;

and neighbourhood problems that sometimes seem to bounce endlessly between organisations.

So when the strategy appears, I hope we don't receive 70 pages of worthy aspirations accompanied by photographs of people pointing at flipcharts.

I want measurable outcomes.

What are the baseline figures?

What are the targets?

Who is responsible for delivering them?

Where are the hotspots?

What happens when targets aren't met?

How will councillors see ward-level performance?

How are West Midlands Police, Sandwell Council and other partners actually going to be held accountable?

And perhaps most importantly:

Will residents be able to tell whether the strategy has worked?

Because publishing another strategy is easy.

Making Great Bridge, West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Smethwick, Oldbury, Tipton and our neighbourhoods demonstrably safer is the difficult bit.

West Midlands Regional Care Cooperative

Another September item seeks approval for Sandwell to accept Department for Education funding on behalf of the West Midlands Regional Care Cooperative and lead on elements of that work.

It too is designated a Key Decision.

This one deserves careful reading when the report arrives.

There may be very good reasons for Sandwell taking the lead.

But any time Sandwell Council becomes accountable for funding or activity being delivered across a wider regional partnership, I want clarity over:

who controls the money;

who carries the financial risk;

what Sandwell's liabilities are;

what happens if another partner doesn't deliver;

how performance is monitored;

and whether the Council is simply acting as an accountable body or taking on wider responsibilities.

Regional partnerships can achieve things individual councils cannot.

They can also create accountability arrangements resembling a plate of spaghetti.

Let's see the report.

Funeral Services Contract

Cabinet is also expected to consider a Funeral Services Contract, another Key Decision.

Again, this may prove completely straightforward.

But funeral and bereavement services are sensitive public services and contracts need proper scrutiny.

I'd want to know:

what is being procured;

the contract value and length;

whether there are extension provisions;

how quality will be measured;

whether prices or charges to residents could be affected;

what previous contract performance has been like;

and what safeguards exist should the contractor fail.

Procurement reports have an unfortunate tendency to concentrate heavily on procurement.

Residents are generally more interested in the service they actually receive.

And Then There's The Fully Exempt One...

One item on the Forward Plan concerns approval to write off legacy arrears relating to premises.

The Council identifies it as a Key Decision, and Modern.Gov presently indicates that the matter is anticipated to be fully exempt.

Now let's be very clear.

The fact that something is considered in private does not mean there is anything improper about it.

Councils legitimately have to protect commercially confidential information and other information falling within statutory exemptions.

But secrecy does create a corresponding responsibility for particularly robust internal governance.

If the public cannot see the details, elected members need to be absolutely satisfied about:

the amount being written off;

why the debt became irrecoverable;

how old it is;

what recovery action was undertaken;

whether mistakes contributed;

whether officers followed the correct debt-recovery procedures;

and whether there are lessons preventing the same situation occurring again.

"Legacy arrears" could describe a perfectly sensible accounting clean-up.

It could also describe money that should have been collected years ago.

Until we see whatever information can lawfully be made public, we simply don't know.

And that is precisely why questions matter.

Now Comes My Bigger Concern – Scrutiny

This is where the diary becomes interesting.

Cabinet is scheduled to meet on:

Wednesday 9 September 2026.

Budget and Corporate Scrutiny meets on:

Thursday 10 September.

Children's Services and Education Scrutiny meets:

Monday 14 September.

Safer Neighbourhoods and Active Communities Scrutiny meets:

Thursday 17 September.

See the potential problem?

Most of the main scrutiny meetings take place after Cabinet.

That doesn't automatically mean these matters haven't been or won't be scrutinised beforehand.

Some policies go through earlier scrutiny meetings, working groups and consultation.

But it does reinforce something I have raised previously.

Scrutiny is most useful BEFORE a decision.

The Council's own scrutiny arrangements recognise that boards should regularly consider the Cabinet Forward Plan and adjust their programmes when important new matters emerge. Previous Sandwell scrutiny reports explicitly describe scrutiny as member-led and say work programmes should remain fluid so emerging issues can be examined in a timely manner.

That is exactly what should happen now.

There is little point in holding a magnificent scrutiny meeting on Thursday explaining everything that Cabinet approved on Wednesday.

That's not scrutiny.

That's a post-match discussion.

The Forward Plan Should Be An Alarm Bell

This is why I intend to pay far more attention to Sandwell's Forward Plan.

Not because every item represents a scandal.

Most won't.

But because this is where we get an early indication of what is coming.

And that's when residents, opposition councillors, backbench councillors and scrutiny members can start asking questions.

Before decisions.

Before contracts.

Before millions are committed.

Before the press release announcing that everything is marvellous.

The Council has recently been through Government intervention, regulatory problems in housing and a lengthy process of rebuilding governance and assurance.

That means scrutiny should not be regarded as an irritating obstacle to getting things done.

Good scrutiny helps stop things going wrong.

And good councillors shouldn't be frightened of it.

Whether they're Reform, Labour, Green or Independent.

What I'll Be Watching For

When September's reports are finally published, I'll be looking particularly at:

Q1 FINANCES

Are pressures worsening? Are savings real? Are reserves being used? Is capital delivery slipping?

TREASURY MANAGEMENT

What happened to borrowing, debt, investments and interest costs?

HOUSING COMPLIANCE

Has Sandwell genuinely fixed the weaknesses exposed by the regulator, and can it prove it?

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Are there measurable targets rather than another collection of ambitions?

REGIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUNDING

Who carries the money, risk and accountability?

FUNERAL SERVICES

What does the contract cost and what protections exist for service quality?

LEGACY ARREARS

What information can legally be released and how did the debt arise?

And underneath all of them:

Who scrutinised it before Cabinet?

That's the question I think we should begin asking every time.

A Different Way Of Watching Sandwell

I'll continue following the Forward Plans and forthcoming committee papers and highlighting anything I think deserves closer examination.

Sometimes I'll find a genuine red flag.

Sometimes the report will answer the questions perfectly adequately.

And occasionally – I live in hope – we may even discover something Sandwell Council has done rather well.

I'll report that too.

But the important thing is that residents should not need to discover major decisions several weeks after councillors have approved them.

The information is there.

The trick is knowing where to look.

So consider this the advance warning.

September could be interesting.

And somewhere inside Sandwell Council House, I suspect somebody is already preparing the appendices.

Lots and lots of appendices.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ForwardPlan #CouncilScrutiny #LocalGovernment #CouncilFinances #PublicMoney #Housing #CommunitySafety #SEND #Governance #Accountability #Transparency #WestMidlands #SandwellPolitics #ReformUK #WatchThePapers #BeforeTheDecision

 

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

DC/25/71072 – Friar Park: Approval Despite Red Flags, Missing Information and Weak Scrutiny

Email sent to members of planning committee: 

I'm writing this to you all just to put in writing serious concerns about this application, the cumulative issues and decision making. 

At the meeting we had a Cllr clearly out of her depth, a poor gent that was half asleep throughout and had to be prompted to vote, we had officers that gave nervous responses some incoherent and not relative (charging points), a lead officer relying on "conditions" and frankly poor scrutiny of the application and applicant/developer. There are some very serious matters that have arisen over time that give rise to further scrutiny on the effectiveness of this committee and decisions made. 

I'm aware some of you may not be in office after the local elections in some cases that will be a relief in others a shame as they may have found an opportunity to be less political and focus on community representation and be a true voice for them rather than a political flag waver. Encouraging to hear that Cllr Piper when out of office will be putting in FOIs and I hope that he uses WhatDoTheyKnow so we can all view them.

DC/25/71072 – Friar Park: Approval Despite Red Flags, Missing Information and Weak Scrutiny

1. Purpose of this briefing

This note records serious concerns arising from the Planning Committee’s decision to approve DC/25/71072 on 1 April 2026.

This was not a routine or well-resolved application. It was a proposal to add 18 more dwellings onto land previously reserved for open space / play provision within the wider Friar Park development context, despite:

• policy conflict,
• unresolved technical matters,
• heavy dependence on conditions,
• weak treatment of cumulative impact,
• live resident concerns about site works,
• and a wider pattern of missing information and unanswered Freedom of Information requests.

The application was nevertheless approved by 7 votes to 1.

This briefing is intended to make clear that:

• the committee did not receive, test or expose enough hard information to justify real confidence in the decision;
• the concerns raised by residents were not meaningfully addressed;
• and the meeting itself displayed troubling signs of weak grasp, deflection and over-reliance on stock planning phrases.

2. Executive summary

The Planning Committee approved DC/25/71072 in circumstances where:

• key matters remained unresolved and were pushed into conditions;
• the application was wrongly minimised as “only 18 houses”;
• cumulative effect was not properly understood or engaged with;
• officer responses to direct questions were sketchy, hesitant and often evasive;
• members appeared content to rely on generic planning language rather than tested facts;
• and live concerns from residents about mud, dust, habitat loss, communication failures and weak enforcement were brushed aside with superficial assurances.

The result is a decision that looks less like robust development management and more like:

approve now, patch later, explain little.

3. The committee’s central failure: treating this as “just 18 houses”

One of the most revealing moments of the meeting was the repeated reduction of the issue to “it’s only 18 houses.”

That line is not merely simplistic. It is planning nonsense.

This is not 18 houses in isolation.

It is:

• 18 more dwellings
• on land previously reserved for open space / play provision
• within the same wider site context as DC/23/68742
• following the boundary / phasing changes under DC/25/71065
• in the same Friar Park area where other applications have already raised serious concerns:
  • DC/25/70154
  • DC/24/69650
  • DC/23/68742

To describe this as “only 18 houses” is to erase the very thing members were supposed to be considering: cumulative effect.

That phrase was plainly not understood by some councillors and was not seriously grappled with by the committee as a whole.

4. Poor understanding of cumulative effect

The committee’s handling of cumulative effect was one of its clearest failures.

There was no serious attempt to assess this application in the context of:

• the already approved 105 dwellings nearby,
• the relocation and effective loss of previously planned open/play land,
• the wider Friar Park growth pattern,
• the traffic and parking pressures already visible,
• the broader strain on schools, SEND provision, GP services and local amenity,
• and the pattern of repeated condition-heavy approvals in the same area.

Instead, the matter was reduced to whether this single application, viewed artificially on its own, could be tolerated.

That is not how cumulative planning impact works.

If members cannot or will not engage with cumulative effect, they are not properly assessing real-world planning consequences.

5. Housing need used as a lazy override

The committee repeatedly fell back on housing need.

Nobody disputes that housing is needed.

But housing need does not:

• cancel out the need for evidence,
• remove the need for proper scrutiny,
• erase policy conflict,
• justify vague and incomplete answers,
• or allow members to ignore unresolved technical matters.

The local plan also identifies shortages and strategic pressures in other areas too — including employment land, schools and open spaces.

So the idea that “we need more houses” is, on its own, a sufficient answer to every objection is profoundly weak.

Housing need is one material consideration.
It is not a universal planning solvent.

6. Far too many conditions — and far too much faith in them

A major reason this approval is so concerning is the extraordinary dependence on planning conditions.

The recommendation was approval subject to conditions relating to, among other things:

• finished floor levels,
• boundary treatment,
• landscaping,
• drainage and SuDS,
• waste storage,
• renewable energy,
• external lighting,
• parking,
• construction management,
• ecological management,
• contaminated land,
• external materials,
• BNG.

That is an enormous amount of unresolved or partly unresolved material being carried forward.

At committee, there was far too much reliance on the stock response that: “this can be conditioned” and that this is “common place in planning.”

That misses the point.

The problem is not that conditions exist.
The problem is that there are too many of them doing too much of the real work.

This committee was effectively asked to vote without full and settled knowledge of:

• drainage performance,
• detailed flood response,
• contaminated land investigation outcomes,
• long-term ecological management,
• construction dust and dirt control,
• and other matters central to whether the scheme is genuinely acceptable.

A committee cannot claim to be fully informed if its answer to repeated uncertainty is simply that it will all be sorted out later.

7. Sketchy, hesitant and evasive officer responses

Another serious concern from the meeting was the quality of the officer responses when matters were raised from the floor.

The officers asked to comment on concerns appeared:

• nervous,
• hesitant,
• sketchy,
• and in some cases plainly deflective.

The answers often did not actually answer the questions being asked.

Instead, there was a repeated tendency to:

• drift into generic reassurance,
• fall back on process language,
• mention conditions,
• or move sideways into irrelevant comfort points.

In one especially telling example, an officer effectively waffled on about electric vehicle charging points when air quality and wider environmental concerns were raised.

That was not a serious answer. It was a distraction.

When officers cannot provide clear, direct and coherent answers under questioning, committee members should be pausing — not waving the application through.

8. Residents’ concerns were minimised, not tested

Residents’ live concerns include:

• mud and dirt being dragged onto roads and pavements,
• dirt entering homes,
• considerable dust,
• ongoing habitat, shrub and tree loss,
• concern about the nature of disturbed soils and dust,
• weak communication with officers,
• weak confidence in developer / contractor control,
• poor confidence in enforcement.

These are not speculative anxieties. They are grounded concerns arising from what residents say they are already experiencing in the area.

Yet the response at committee was little more than:

• vague references to monitoring,
• road cleaning,
• and generic condition-based management.

There was no serious scrutiny of:

• what is in the dust,
• whether disturbed soils have been properly characterised,
• how quickly complaints are actioned,
• what enforcement has actually occurred,
• or whether current site management gives any real confidence for further works.

This was a major failure of the meeting.

9. The policy conflict was admitted — then waved away

The report itself accepts:

• the site falls outside the current residential allocation,
• it affects the Manor High School SLINC,
• and therefore there is conflict with policy, particularly around nature conservation.

Yet this was effectively neutralised at committee by:

• housing need,
• the tilted balance,
• and the claim that harm is “mitigated.”

That is not a convincing rebuttal.

Mitigation is not the same as absence of harm.
Nor is policy conflict made trivial simply because a shortfall exists elsewhere.

This was a weak and overly convenient treatment of a serious policy issue.

10. The open space issue was not seriously confronted

This application only exists in its present form because land previously reserved for open space / play has been repurposed for housing.

The report says the LAP has been moved and the remaining provision is “arguably better situated.”

That is a strikingly weak phrase for such an important planning shift.

“Arguably better situated” is not a rigorous evidence base.

It does not answer:

• whether it is equivalent in size,
• whether it is equivalent in play value,
• whether it is equivalent in accessibility,
• whether residents are losing the landscape and amenity value of what was previously promised,
• or whether this is simply a net loss dressed up as redesign.

11. Councillor conduct and deflection

There was also troubling conduct in the meeting itself.

Rather than staying focused on the planning substance, councillors Chidley and Piper chose to question where I live.

That was irrelevant to the application and plainly deflective.

I was there speaking on behalf of the Wednesbury Action Group.
The issues raised concerned:

• the application,
• the wider Friar Park context,
• cumulative impacts,
• resident concerns,
• and governance failings.

The speaker’s postcode does not answer any of those points.

That line of questioning appeared more political than planning-based, and the Chair should not have allowed the discussion to drift into that territory.

12. The Chair’s remarks and the issue of scrutiny

The Chair referred to the many pages in the report pack and asked whether I had read them.

Yes — I had.

The more relevant question is: how many members had read and understood them properly?

Because the quality of the debate strongly suggested that some members had not fully grasped:

• cumulative effect,
• the scale of condition reliance,
• the significance of unresolved matters,
• or the wider Friar Park pattern.

The committee cannot claim strong scrutiny if:

• hard questions are not answered,
• cumulative issues are not engaged with,
• and members fall back on slogans like “only 18 houses.”

13. Timing and unanswered FOIs

At the time of the meeting, many relevant FOIs remained:

• unanswered,
• overdue,
• or inadequately answered.

This includes FOIs relating to:

• DC/25/70154
• DC/24/69650
• DC/23/68742
• the wider Friar Park Urban Village
• and parallel requests to the WMCA and Environment Agency

This is not a side issue. It goes directly to confidence in the evidential basis and internal decision-making surrounding Friar Park.

The public still does not have clear disclosure on:

• internal concerns,
• risk reasoning,
• cumulative treatment,
• remediation oversight,
• and environmental transparency.

Members therefore voted in a context where important background information remained missing or unresolved.

That matters.

14. The vote itself

The committee voted:

• 7 in favour
• 1 against

That means all but one councillor were content for the application to proceed despite:

• unresolved matters,
• very heavy condition reliance,
• policy conflict,
• open space loss,
• weak treatment of cumulative effect,
• resident concerns about current works,
• poor quality answers in the meeting,
• and outstanding FOI opacity.

That should be stated plainly.

The approval was not a cautious, evidence-rich endorsement.
It was a vote to proceed in the face of substantial uncertainty.

15. What this decision says about Friar Park planning culture

This decision reinforces an increasingly obvious pattern in the Friar Park area:

• more housing can always be found room for,
• open space can be moved if needed,
• policy conflict can be softened by the tilted balance,
• technical detail can be pushed into conditions,
• resident concerns can be minimised,
• and transparency can wait.

This is not robust planning.

It is a culture of: incremental intensification, condition-heavy approval and thin accountability.

16. Key conclusions

A. The committee did not meaningfully engage with cumulative effect

The phrase was raised, but the substance was not understood or addressed.

B. The application was wrongly minimised

“Only 18 houses” was used to avoid the wider picture.

C. Housing need was overused as a rebuttal

Housing need became a substitute for planning judgment.

D. Conditions were relied on far too heavily

The committee approved without full and settled knowledge of critical matters.

E. Officer answers were weak

Responses were hesitant, generic and often evasive.

F. Residents were not taken seriously enough

Dust, mud, habitat loss, enforcement confidence and communication failures were all minimised.

G. The meeting allowed political deflection

Questioning where the speaker lives was improper and irrelevant.

H. The decision was made despite missing information and unanswered FOIs

That significantly undermines confidence in the scrutiny process.

17. Questions councillors should now reflect on

1. Did members really understand the cumulative context of this application?
2. Were members genuinely satisfied with the volume and significance of matters left to condition?
3. Did officer answers fully and coherently address the questions asked?
4. Was enough weight given to current resident experience of dust, dirt, habitat loss and poor enforcement confidence?
5. Should members have been asked to defer until more information and FOI transparency were available?
6. Are committees in Friar Park now becoming too comfortable approving on incomplete knowledge?

18. Final position

This decision should concern anyone who cares about planning standards in Sandwell.

It shows a committee willing to:

• minimise the scale of concern,
• accept incomplete answers,
• defer key matters to conditions,
• ignore cumulative context,
• and approve despite significant uncertainty.

The message sent to residents was unmistakable:

your concerns can be heard, but they do not have to be seriously tested.

That is not good planning.
That is not good governance.
And it is not good enough.

DC/25/71072 was not approved because the hard questions were convincingly answered. It was approved because the committee was willing to proceed without them.

Further info not included in email: 

Don’t take my word for it. Watch Sandwell’s own webcast of Planning Committee. Agenda item 6 covers DC/25/71072 and starts at around 15:28 in the recording. Judge for yourself how well the questions were answered. 

Planning Committee VideobStream

#SandwellCouncil #PlanningCommittee #Wednesbury #FriarParkRoad #HighPointAcademy #Planning #LocalGovernment #Governance #Accountability #Transparency #OpenSpace #PlayProvision #SLINC #AirQuality #Dust #Mud #ContaminatedLand #FloodRisk #SuDS #Housing #CumulativeImpact #ResidentConcerns #Enforcement #BlackCountry

Three Friar Park Approvals. Three Warning Signs. One Planning Culture Problem.- DC/25/70154, DC/24/69650 and DC/23/68742.

Three Friar Park Approvals. Three Warning Signs. One Planning Culture Problem.

Let’s get one thing straight from the start.

Friar Park Urban Village (FPUV) has not yet had its main planning application submitted.

So this article is not about attacking an application that does not yet formally exist.

It is about something arguably more important:

👉 the pattern already visible in three separate approved applications in the same Friar Park area:

• DC/25/70154
• DC/24/69650
• DC/23/68742

Taken together, these approvals raise serious questions about:

• planning standards
• evidence gaps
• governance
• policy compliance
• transparency
• and whether the council is drifting into habits that bear the hallmarks of maladministration

Not proven maladministration, no.
But enough red flags to justify asking the question loudly.

And repeatedly.

This is not one bad application. It is a pattern.

Any one planning application can be messy.
Any one officer report can be debatable.
Any one set of conditions can be argued over.

But when you start seeing the same defects across multiple applications in the same area, the issue stops being “an error” and starts becoming a culture.

That is where Friar Park now sits.

Across these three applications, the same themes keep appearing:

• incomplete evidence at determination stage
• major issues kicked into planning conditions
• weak or missing cumulative assessment
• strange absence of recorded internal debate
• “NIL” FOI responses that do not sit comfortably with the documents actually disclosed
• and repeated signs that difficult matters are being parked for later rather than resolved before permission is granted

In other words:

approve first, sort it later, and record as little as possible.

DC/25/70154 — approved with gaps still live

This application is one of the clearest examples of the problem.

The council’s own disclosed material shows that noise concerns were still being actively queried before determination.

Calculations were challenged.
Clarification was requested.
Further information was sought.
An extension of time was needed to resolve outstanding issues.

That is not a clean, settled evidence base. That is an application with live technical uncertainty.

The biodiversity position was no better.

The ecology side effectively accepted that proper Biodiversity Net Gain detail was not in place at the point it should have been, and that key matters could simply be dealt with later through standard post-permission conditions.

So let’s be honest about what that means.

It means permission was being advanced while important ecological detail was still incomplete.

And yet when asked through FOI for records about:

• unresolved issues,
• concerns,
• risk,
• or the appropriateness of relying on conditions,

the council’s answer was largely:

NIL.

Apparently nobody was worried.
Nobody debated anything.
Nobody recorded any reservations.

Except the disclosed emails show that they clearly did.

That is not a minor inconsistency.
That is a governance problem.

DC/24/69650 — where the documents start telling a very different story

If 70154 is troubling, 69650 is positively instructive.

Because here the disclosed material begins to show how the sausage is made.

There were active discussions with the developer.
There were highways concerns.
There were layout issues.
There were SuDS constraints.
There were clear tensions between technical acceptability and maximising housing numbers.

In one strand, drainage choices were plainly being influenced by the desire not to lose plots.

In another, highways raised concerns over access standards, layout and future connectivity.

There were even internal comments suggesting that what was being counted toward biodiversity gain looked less like a thoughtful ecological solution and more like a left-over bit of land likely to become scrub and ASB territory.

That is not a model of robust planning.
That is a model of squeezing a scheme through.

And once again, when FOI requests asked for the internal risk thinking, balancing exercises, and recorded reasoning behind accepting these compromises?

The answer came back neat, sanitised and suspiciously empty.

NIL. NIL. NIL.

Only this time, the disclosed documents themselves show that is at best incomplete and at worst deeply misleading.

DC/23/68742 — the incredible vanishing paper trail

Then we come to 68742, the application where the council’s response was so devoid of internal record that it almost made the case on its own.

Planning? Nil.
Public Health? Nil.
Highways? Nil.
Environmental Protection? Nil.
Flood Risk? Nil.
Balancing exercise? Nil.
Why conditions instead of refusal? Nil.

For a development in this location, with this context, those responses are simply not credible.

And yet, in the same breath, the council still pointed to technical assessments and consultation responses that had evidently been received and considered.

So which is it?

Were there no internal records of any kind?

Or were the searches inadequate, the interpretation narrow, or the disclosure incomplete?

Because both positions cannot be true at once.

You cannot claim there was effectively no internal decision trail while also relying on technical consultation responses to justify the decision.

That is the kind of contradiction that should make every councillor, auditor and monitoring officer sit bolt upright.

The real issue: planning by condition, not by evidence

The most consistent theme across all three applications is not contamination alone, or noise alone, or BNG alone.

It is this:

key issues are not being fully resolved before approval.

Instead, there is repeated reliance on conditions to:

• investigate later,
• mitigate later,
• clarify later,
• submit proper detail later,
• and somehow clean up the evidential mess later.

Conditions are not unlawful. Of course they are not.

But they are not supposed to become a substitute for proper front-loaded planning judgment.

A planning authority should be able to explain:

• why the issue was safe to defer,
• why refusal was not justified,
• why the remaining uncertainty was acceptable,
• and how the decision still complied with policy despite those gaps.

That is exactly the kind of reasoning your FOIs have gone looking for.

And again and again, the answer has been a bureaucratic shrug.

No logs.
No drafts.
No concerns.
No debate.
No rationale.

For three separate applications.

At some point the absence of records becomes a record in itself.

Where are the cumulative assessments?

Another huge red flag is the lack of meaningful cumulative thinking.

These applications sit in the same broad Friar Park area.
They are not isolated islands.
They interact with the same strained transport corridors, the same air quality pressures, the same broader growth context, the same school-place problem, and the same nearby communities.

Yet the evidence trail for cumulative assessment appears painfully weak.

That matters because planning is not just about asking:

“Can this one scheme scrape through on paper?”

It is also about asking:

“What happens when these schemes are layered on top of each other in the real world?”

That question seems to have gone missing far too often.

Why this starts to look like maladministration

Let’s use careful language.

I am not saying maladministration has been formally proven.
That is for the appropriate body to determine.

But I am saying this:

These applications display traits consistent with possible maladministration, including:

• inadequate record-keeping
• inconsistent FOI responses
• failure to disclose obvious internal reasoning
• repeated reliance on conditions without visible justification
• fragmented rather than integrated assessment
• weak evidence of cumulative consideration
• and a planning culture that appears more focused on getting to “yes” than on evidencing why “yes” was safe, lawful and rational

That is not a throwaway criticism.

That is a serious governance warning.

And this matters before the FPUV application arrives

This is why these three applications matter so much.

Because the main FPUV application has not yet been submitted.

These applications are, in effect, the warning lights on the dashboard before the main engine failure.

If this is how smaller or linked applications in the same area are being handled now, what confidence should anyone have that the big one will suddenly be treated with immaculate rigour, pristine transparency and saintly caution?

Exactly.

Final word

The lesson from DC/25/70154, DC/24/69650 and DC/23/68742 is not simply that residents disagree with development.

It is that there is now a serious, evidence-backed basis for questioning how Sandwell is making planning decisions in the Friar Park area at all.

Three approvals.
Three sets of red flags.
Three signs of the same deeper problem.

And if nobody addresses that problem before the main FPUV application lands, then whatever comes next will not just be a planning application.

It will be the next chapter in a governance failure that everybody could already see coming.

#FriarPark #Sandwell #Planning #FOI #Governance #DC2570154 #DC2469650 #DC2368742 #ContaminatedLand #BNG #Noise #Highways #Wednesbury #LocalGovernment #Transparency

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