Monday, 7 September 2026

Rowley Regis Town Deal: £19 Million, Three People and a Spreadsheet That Doesn’t Quite Agree With Itself

There are some council reports where you need a calculator.

There are others where you need a calculator, a magnifying glass, three cups of tea and perhaps somebody from Bletchley Park.

The latest Rowley Regis Town Deal Board papers are edging towards the latter category.

The Board meets virtually on Thursday 10 September 2026, overseeing a Towns Fund programme originally worth £19 million. The projects themselves include some perfectly worthwhile things: parks, pathways, Blackheath town centre improvements, the Cradley Heath Skills Campus and improved walking and cycling links.

My concern is not that these schemes shouldn't exist.

It is much simpler:

If we are spending millions of pounds of public money, surely the public financial reports should agree with themselves?

At the moment, several don't.

First, the good news

Let's be fair.

There are some significant achievements recorded in these papers.

The Cradley Heath Skills Campus is built and operating. Parks have been improved. Britannia Park has secured a Green Flag Award. The Canal Network Connectivity project reports pedestrian and cycling improvements. Blackheath has received major public-realm investment. Various employment, tree-planting and accessibility targets are reported as achieved or exceeded.

So this isn't one of those blogs where I am going to pretend absolutely nothing has happened.

It clearly has.

But delivering projects is only half the job.

The other half is being able to demonstrate clearly what was promised, what was spent, what changed, what was achieved and where the remaining money went.

And that is where things become rather more interesting.

£19 million – but which numbers are we using today?

The headline financial position is reasonably straightforward.

The September report says:

Original Towns Fund allocation: £19,000,000
Current approved programme: £18,567,050.42
Spend by 30 June 2026: £17,657,907.63
Remaining approved expenditure: £909,142.79
Underspend against the original £19m: £432,949.58

So far, so good. Those numbers actually add up.

Then you start turning the pages.

And the calculator begins quietly sobbing.

Blackheath: nearly a million pounds disappears between pages

Let's take Blackheath Bus Interchange, Public Realm and CCTV.

Page 43 tells us:

Project Value: £2,901,895

and:

Towns Fund: £2,901,895.

Except the financial table on exactly the same page appears to total:

£2,904,895.

So we've already found £3,000 wandering about unattended.

But turn to the Town Level Financial Profile on page 53 and Blackheath's current project total appears as approximately:

£1,926,945.42.

That is a difference approaching £1 million from the figure displayed only ten pages earlier.

Now, there may be a completely legitimate explanation.

Projects change. Savings arise. Budgets are reprofiled. Money gets formally reallocated.

Fine.

But if that is what happened, show us the bridge between the numbers.

Original budget → expenditure → saving → Board decision → reallocation → revised budget.

That isn't unreasonable.

It's basic financial transparency.

At present the public is left playing regeneration Sudoku.

Parks: pick a number, any number

The Rowley Regis Parks Improvement project doesn't make things much easier.

Page 34 reports:

Project value – £2,874,000

with:

£80,199.70 match funding

and:

£2,793,800 Towns Fund.

Turn the page and suddenly we have:

Project value – £3,237,732.24

Match funding – £363,732.24

Towns Fund – £2,874,000.

Then the Town Level Financial Profile on page 53 apparently gives the project a total of:

£3,204,000.

Three presentations.

Three different financial pictures.

One programme.

Perhaps all three can be reconciled.

But the report doesn't do it for us.

And frankly, it shouldn't require Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and the bloke off The Chase to work out the current approved budget for a council regeneration project.

Rowley Regis Connected joins the numerical party

Then there is Rowley Regis Connected.

Depending upon which part of the document you are looking at, figures around the project include:

£1.5 million

£1.624104 million

approximately £1.620923 million

and the Town Level Financial Profile appears to show approximately:

£1.865076 million.

Again, perhaps every figure has a perfectly reasonable explanation.

If so, wonderful.

Put that explanation in the public report.

Because the purpose of public monitoring shouldn't merely be that the Council knows what the numbers mean.

The public should be able to understand them too.

And remember those mysterious £XXs?

At the special Board meeting on 16 July, several further schemes were approved using programme underspend.

These included:

Haden Hill Pathway Improvements
Haden Hill Adventure Play
Cornfields Play Park
Blackheath Town Centre CCTV
further Wrights Lane works.

But when the minutes were published, several actual financial amounts had mysteriously transformed into:

“£XX”.

Very useful.

Imagine doing your household accounts like that.

Mortgage: £XX.

Electricity: £XX.

Tesco: £XX.

Money left until payday: best not think about it.

For a Board making decisions involving public regeneration funding, the approved amounts should appear clearly in the public decision record unless there is a lawful and clearly explained reason why they cannot.

Three people could potentially make the decisions

Then there is the question of quorum.

This one is worth paying attention to.

In June, four Board members attended a meeting.

The minutes specifically record that the Board was inquorate, meaning it couldn't make certain decisions about project closure and underspend.

At the July meeting the Board changed its Terms of Reference.

Instead of a fixed number, quorum became 25% of the Board membership.

The September agenda lists 12 Board members.

Twenty-five per cent of twelve is:

Three.

So unless there is another rule hidden elsewhere in the Terms of Reference, it appears that three members could potentially constitute a quorate meeting of a Board overseeing a multi-million-pound regeneration programme.

That doesn't automatically make the decision wrong.

But it certainly deserves explaining.

Why 25%?

What was the previous threshold?

Which comparable regeneration boards use 25%?

Is there any requirement that business, community, political or public-sector representatives are present?

Could three people genuinely approve significant changes to programme spending?

These are governance questions, not conspiracy theories.

CCTV complete... except apparently it isn't

Blackheath CCTV produces another little head-scratcher.

At the July meeting the Board approved plans for a 15-camera CCTV system linked into the Roway Lane control room.

Interestingly, when a question was asked about increased anti-social behaviour, members were told that the relevant ASB information would need to come from the ASB Team.

I would have thought the evidence came before approving the investment rather than afterwards, but there we are.

The September report then says:

“CCTV – works being costed and waiting for start date.”

Fair enough.

Except elsewhere in the same Blackheath project report it says:

“Project expenditure and outputs are all complete.”

And:

“Current challenges – None.”

Well, which is it?

If the CCTV is still being costed and hasn't started, how are the project's expenditure and outputs all complete?

Perhaps the CCTV is technically a new extension financed from underspend.

Again, that may be the explanation.

But that distinction should be crystal clear.

The project finished last November... and remains “ongoing”

There is another curiosity.

The Blackheath project page gives an:

End date: November 2025

but in September 2026 still reports:

Status: Ongoing – On track.

Similarly, Rowley Regis Connected records an end date of March 2025 while still being described as ongoing in this September 2026 monitoring pack.

Maybe project extensions explain that.

If so, update the dates.

Public reports should show the programme that actually exists today, not the programme that existed three templates ago.

April–June? July–September? October–December?

This is perhaps my favourite bit.

The agenda describes the project reporting as covering:

July–September.

The presentation title says:

“Reporting Period July–September 2026.”

The formal officer report says it covers:

1 April 2026 to 30 June 2026.

And then the financial section introduces itself as:

“Summary of the October to December Monitoring Returns.”

Excellent.

Three reporting periods for the price of one.

I am fairly confident we haven't yet invented a calendar where April, July and October all happen simultaneously.

This looks like straightforward document-control or template-copying problems.

But that's precisely the point.

When a document is being relied upon to monitor millions of pounds, somebody ought to be checking the final version before it goes out.

Apparently May is still in the future too

The report also states that the next government submission was to be uploaded by:

28 May 2026.

The Board meeting is on 10 September 2026.

Unless Sandwell Council has acquired a flux capacitor as part of the Town Deal programme, May has already happened.

Again, harmless typo?

Probably.

But there are rather a lot of harmless errors gathering in one document.

The Canal numbers need checking before anybody closes the project

The Canal Network Connectivity project is particularly important because formal closure has already been delayed while evaluation information is completed.

Yet the September pack seems to contain two different versions of the pedestrian and cycling outcome figures.

Page 18 gives a grand total of:

440,304

while page 19 gives:

218,134.

Those are not rounding differences.

That is a difference of more than 222,000.

And when closure has specifically been delayed so that output and evaluation evidence can be checked, surely the first task should be establishing which figure is actually right.

The Skills Campus deserves credit – but the monitoring needs explaining

There is much to welcome about the £9.3m Cradley Heath Skills Campus.

The June meeting heard that 325 adults were using the centre and that there had already been significant SEND participation.

The latest report says 294 adult 19+ enrolments took place during the 2025/26 academic year.

Those may be different measures, which is fine.

But the formal Towns Fund output table says:

Learners/trainees/students enrolled

Target: 475

Actual achieved: 0.

The overall Town Deal summary also records zero.

So how can we simultaneously have hundreds of learners using or enrolled at the Campus while the monitored output remains zero?

There will probably be a technical reporting explanation.

Let's have it.

The same applies to High Needs/SEND places.

This is exactly the sort of information residents need to understand because SEND provision across Sandwell remains an enormous issue.

1,393 trees from a target of... 100 or 150?

Here's another smaller example.

The parks project page gives a tree-planting target of:

150

with 1,393 achieved.

Excellent result.

But the Town Level summary gives the target as:

100, again with 1,393 achieved.

Either way, planting 1,393 trees is clearly well above target.

But which target was actually approved?

100?

150?

Both apparently.

And apparently cycling has gone through the roof

The Rowley Regis Connected measures aimed to increase cycling trips from 163 to 450 per day.

The latest table reports:

3,731.

If that genuinely represents 3,731 daily cycling trips, that is extraordinary and deserves celebrating.

But it also deserves explaining.

Was that a daily average?

A cumulative counter reading?

A survey-period total?

Which routes?

What methodology?

If we have increased cycling from 163 to nearly 4,000 journeys a day, somebody should probably tell the rest of the country how Sandwell did it.

Pride in Place is beginning to appear around the edges too

There is another issue I want residents to watch carefully.

The September agenda contains an item specifically discussing Blackheath market loading bays and possible Pride in Place funding.

Elsewhere the parks report says officers are also looking at obtaining Pride in Place funding for street lighting.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using different funding programmes together.

Sometimes that makes perfect sense.

But the funding streams need to remain transparent.

Residents should be able to see whether something is being paid for from:

the original Town Deal;
Town Deal underspend;
Council mainstream budgets;
Highways funding;
match funding;
UKSPF;
Section 106;
or Pride in Place.

Otherwise one pot slowly merges into another and eventually nobody outside the building can tell which programme paid for what.

A word about Reform

It is important to be fair here.

Much of the Rowley Regis Town Deal programme was designed, approved and substantially delivered before Reform took control of Sandwell Council in May 2026.

These are therefore largely inherited programmes, funding structures and historical decisions.

It would be ridiculous to pretend the current administration designed every spreadsheet or made every decision going back years.

But Reform now runs the Council.

Councillor Ray Nock sits on this Board as Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Growth.

So the current administration now has an opportunity — and responsibility — to insist upon better transparency, cleaner reporting and clearer accountability.

That is precisely the sort of thing Reform told residents would change.

Here is an easy opportunity to demonstrate it.

No grand speech needed.

Just make the numbers add up.

Twelve reasonable questions before Thursday

Before the 10 September meeting, I think the Board should be able to answer some straightforward questions:

1. Does the new 25% quorum genuinely mean three of the twelve members can make decisions?

2. What was the previous quorum and why was it reduced?

3. Can the Board publish one reconciled schedule showing the original £19m allocation, expenditure, underspend, reallocations and current project budgets?

4. Why do the Blackheath financial figures differ by nearly £1m between different parts of the same pack?

5. Why are there several different financial values for the Parks programme?

6. What is the actual approved current budget for Rowley Regis Connected?

7. What were the actual £ figures hidden behind the “£XX” entries in the July minutes?

8. How is Blackheath expenditure described as complete when CCTV is still being costed?

9. Which Canal Network Connectivity outcome figure is correct — 440,304 or 218,134?

10. Why does the Skills Campus report hundreds of learners but formally record zero against its 475 learner target?

11. Why does the report contain three different reporting periods and a government submission deadline already months out of date?

12. What exactly does the reported figure of 3,731 cycling trips represent?

None of these questions accuses anybody of wrongdoing.

They simply ask the Board to explain its own paperwork.

The bottom line

Rowley Regis has received substantial regeneration investment.

Residents should want those projects to succeed.

I certainly do.

But success isn't measured simply by spending money and cutting ribbons.

It is also measured by whether residents can trace what happened to the money, understand the outcomes and trust the information being published.

At the moment, the September Town Deal pack contains too many figures, dates and descriptions that don't comfortably reconcile.

Perhaps every discrepancy has an innocent and perfectly sensible explanation.

If so, brilliant.

Let's hear those explanations and clean up the public record.

Because when you are overseeing a programme that started with £19 million of public money, “it's somewhere in the spreadsheet” really isn't an adequate standard of accountability.

And if the Board has genuinely found a way for April–June, July–September and October–December to occur at the same time, I withdraw my criticism entirely.

They haven't just regenerated Rowley Regis.

They've reinvented time.

#RowleyRegis #Blackheath #CradleyHeath #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #TownDeal #TownsFund #PublicMoney #Transparency #Accountability #Regeneration #PrideInPlace #LocalGovernment #ReformUK

Sandwell Cabinet: Reform Has the Chance to Show It Has Learned From July

There is another Sandwell Council Cabinet meeting coming up on Wednesday 9 September 2026.

This time the agenda pack is 302 pages rather than July’s extraordinary 710-page marathon, so there really should be no excuse for rushing through the business.

And frankly, this meeting needs proper scrutiny.

Not theatre.

Not prepared speeches.

Not a procession of “approved”, “noted” and “delegated”.

Because buried in these reports are some very serious issues involving SEND, Sandwell Children’s Trust, Adult Social Care, capital delivery, community safety, procurement and the Council’s growing reliance on delegated authority. The agenda covers eight substantive items after the minutes, including the Q1 budget, Community Safety Strategy, Enhanced Assessment Beds and a major regional children’s care proposal.

Let me say this again before anybody reaches for their party-coloured pitchfork.

I want Reform to succeed.

I want this new administration to perform well.

I want them to challenge officers, improve services, strengthen scrutiny and finally deliver the sort of cultural change many Sandwell residents have been asking for years.

That doesn’t mean giving them a free pass.

Quite the opposite.

A critical friend says:

“I want you to succeed — which is precisely why I’m pointing out where the warning lights are flashing.”

And there are plenty flashing in this pack.

First, July Hasn’t Gone Away

September Cabinet will be asked to approve the minutes of the 15 July meeting.

You remember that one.

710 pages.

Fifteen substantive reports.

One hour and four minutes.

Some extremely significant decisions.

Very little visible challenge.

The September pack confirms the July agenda included the Corporate Peer Challenge, performance, finance, housing, regeneration, SEND and school capital decisions.

Those minutes should not simply be approved and forgotten.

Some of the issues Cabinet approved in July have already developed significantly.

SEND finances are worse.

Sandwell Children’s Trust remains financially troubled.

Housing pressures continue.

Capital delivery is still slipping.

If there was ever a time for “matters arising”, this is it.

A new administration should be asking:

What has changed since July?

What did we get right?

What now looks worse than we thought?

What needs bringing back for further scrutiny?

That would be healthy governance.

Item 5 — “Elevating Our Voice”

This is actually one of the stronger items.

The Council wants to adopt a new Children and Young People’s Engagement Strategy together with the SEND Working Together Charter.

More than 100 children and young people were involved in developing the proposals, and the strategy promises to move beyond one-off consultation towards genuine participation and co-production.

The language is good.

The five principles are:

Inform.

Involve.

Invest.

Influence.

Impact.

The accompanying young people’s material goes further.

It says adults should explain:

what young people said;
what was done with their views;
what changed;
what couldn’t change;
what happens next;
and what young people can do if they are unhappy with the decision.

Excellent.

That’s exactly the sort of accountability residents — young or old — should expect.

But here is the test.

What happens when young people say something the Council doesn’t want to hear?

That is when we find out whether co-production means:

“help us make the decision”

or:

“thanks for your views, now back to the original plan.”

The Council’s own legal section correctly says co-production cannot override lawful statutory decision-making.

Fair enough.

But if this strategy is going to mean anything, Sandwell should publish a simple annual record:

You said → We considered → We changed → We didn’t change → Here’s why.

That would be real accountability.

And One Interesting Public Health Red Flag

There is another issue tucked away in this report that deserves Cabinet attention.

The SHAPE programme is supported through a Public Health Redirect to Children’s Services.

The report itself explicitly warns there is a financial and governance risk if Public Health funding is used, or is perceived to be used, to meet statutory Children’s Services responsibilities. It says the distinction must be auditable.

That is a very specific warning.

Cabinet should ask:

How much money is involved?

Exactly what does it fund?

What Public Health outcomes are being purchased?

Who audits it?

Has Internal Audit looked at it?

That isn’t being awkward.

That is exactly what Cabinet is there for.

Item 6 — The Q1 Budget

This is the big one.

The headline says the Council is forecasting a General Fund overspend of only:

£623,000

On a £464.480m net budget, that sounds almost reassuring.

But please do not stop reading at the headline.

Directorate budgets are actually forecasting a combined overspend of:

£4.351 million

That is being substantially offset by £3.728m of centrally held underspends.

Those central savings include:

a £1.780m pension fund rebate;
a £1.724m Treasury Management underspend.

The pension rebate is expressly described as a one-off benefit.

So let’s be clear.

The Council’s service pressures are bigger than the £623,000 headline might suggest.

And that matters.

SEND: £34.7 MILLION

This figure should dominate the meeting.

The High Needs Block budget is £81.364m.

Forecast expenditure is £116.064m.

The result?

£34.700 million overspend.

The report says Sandwell supported 5,273 children with EHCPs at the end of 2025/26 and that figure could rise to 6,273 by the end of 2026/27.

The cumulative High Needs deficit is forecast to reach:

£40.753 million

before potential Government support.

The Government may cover 90% of Sandwell’s historic High Needs deficit up to the end of 2025/26, subject to an approved SEND reform plan.

Sandwell estimates that could mean £5.448m.

But then comes the sentence every Cabinet Member should underline:

the Council “will be reliant on similar arrangements being put in place” for the 2026/27 overspend.

Reliant.

Not guaranteed.

Not confirmed.

Reliant.

That is a significant financial risk.

The obvious question is:

What happens if Government support for the new £34.7m deficit is nowhere near 90%?

Where is the downside scenario?

Where is Plan B?

SEND Transport: Another £3.3 Million

Children and Education is also forecasting a £3.3m overspend on SEND Home-to-School Transport.

The report attributes this to:

growth in EHCP numbers;
clearance of assessment backlogs;
passenger numbers exceeding assumptions;
around one-third of future EHCP growth being assumed to require transport.

This is not simply a transport issue.

It is part of the same SEND system pressure.

More EHCPs.

More specialist places.

More out-of-area provision.

More transport.

More cost.

Cabinet needs to stop looking at these numbers in separate boxes and demand one joined-up five-year SEND demand model.

Sandwell Children’s Trust — Still Not Fixed

Then we arrive at Sandwell Children’s Trust.

The Trust ended 2025/26 carrying a deficit of:

£18.2 million.

The Council’s contract for this year includes:

£96.352m for current activity;
£6.597m towards part of the accumulated deficit.

And at the end of Quarter 1?

Another:

£1.2 million actual overspend.

And here is the part that should really concern Cabinet:

No full-year forecast has yet been reported.

Really?

A wholly Council-owned company with an £18.2m accumulated deficit, receiving substantial additional Council funding, still hasn’t produced a reliable full-year forecast?

That is not something to glide past.

July’s minutes already recorded that the Trust’s deficit reduction was not on track.

So what exactly is the revised plan?

What went wrong with the previous assumptions?

What did the audit find?

When will councillors receive a credible trajectory?

How much more taxpayer support could ultimately be required?

Those are perfectly reasonable questions.

Adult Social Care — Another £4.772 Million Pressure

Adult Social Care is forecasting an overspend of:

£4.772 million.

The main driver is external placements, with a £4.797m pressure because new packages are costing more than packages ending.

Learning disability placements alone account for more than £4m of that pressure.

Again, these are demand-led services.

You cannot simply stop helping vulnerable people because the spreadsheet looks uncomfortable.

That means the answer has to come through:

better commissioning;

more local provision;

prevention;

better market management;

and better forecasting.

Cabinet should be asking whether Sandwell has enough local care capacity and whether it is paying too much because suitable provision is not available locally.

Vacancy Savings — Saving Money or Losing Capacity?

There is another recurring theme across the budget report.

Vacancy savings.

They appear across:

Place;
Housing;
Adult Social Care;
Finance;
Customer Services;
Transformation.

The HRA alone forecasts £4.190m of vacancy and employee-related savings.

That looks lovely in a budget table.

But empty desks don’t answer phones.

Vacant posts don’t manage contracts.

Vacant posts don’t deliver capital projects.

Vacant posts don’t process adaptations.

Vacant posts don’t complete procurement exercises.

So Cabinet needs to ask:

Are we saving money because work has genuinely become more efficient — or because work simply isn’t getting done?

That is a very different thing.

£11 Million of Savings — But Some Old Ones Still Haven’t Arrived

The Council is trying to deliver £11.008m of ongoing savings this year.

Only 63% are currently delivered on an ongoing basis.

Another 17% are expected by year end.

And 11% are currently only being delivered as one-off savings.

Even more tellingly, £3.697m relates to savings from previous years that were not delivered permanently.

At some point a “saving” that keeps rolling forward stops being a saving.

It becomes wishful thinking with a spreadsheet.

Cabinet should demand named owners, deadlines and replacement measures for every red or amber saving.

Reserves — Healthy, But Being Used

Sandwell began the year with £175.661m of General Fund earmarked reserves.

The current forecast would draw around:

£24.968 million

leaving approximately £150.693m.

That is not evidence of financial collapse.

Let’s not exaggerate.

Reserves exist to be used.

But there is a difference between:

using reserves for planned transformation

and:

using reserves to repeatedly prop up structural pressure.

The General Fund balance itself is forecast to finish around £22.799m, close to the bottom of the Council’s preferred 5–10% range.

So no, Sandwell is not broke.

But neither is this the time for complacency.

Capital Slippage — Here We Go Again

General Fund capital budget:

£98.919m

Forecast expenditure:

£85.683m

Expected slippage:

£13.236m.

HRA capital budget:

£118.459m

Forecast:

£105.661m

Slippage:

£12.798m.

That is more than £26m of planned capital activity moving backwards.

And this comes after the previous year when the Council delivered only 71% of the revised General Fund capital programme and 67% of the revised HRA programme.

At some point we need to stop calling this “slippage” as though the budget has merely tripped over a loose paving slab.

It is becoming a delivery pattern.

Residents need to see:

Budgeted.

Spent.

Completed.

Outcome delivered.

They are four very different things.

Disabled Facilities Grants — This Needs Explaining

One particular figure should concern us all.

The Disabled Facilities Grant budget is £11.478m.

Forecast spend:

£5.5m.

Forecast underspend:

£5.978 million.

The report says unspent grant funding has built up over a number of years.

That needs a proper explanation.

How many disabled residents are waiting for adaptations?

How long are they waiting?

Is there an Occupational Therapy backlog?

A contractor backlog?

A processing problem?

Is the money committed but simply not yet paid?

Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable answer.

Fine.

Let’s hear it.

But millions of pounds of adaptation funding sitting unspent while residents need ramps, wet rooms, stairlifts and other changes should not be buried in a finance appendix.

Item 7 — Treasury Management

This is less alarming.

The report confirms treasury management remained within approved limits and is being referred onwards in line with the CIPFA Prudential Code.

Good.

But “we stayed within the limits” should be the starting point, not the end of scrutiny.

Cabinet should still ask:

What is total borrowing?

What is the average interest rate?

What does the refinancing profile look like?

How much planned borrowing has been delayed because capital projects slipped?

What does future debt servicing do to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy?

Compliance is necessary.

Affordability matters too.

Item 8 — Funeral Services

This looks broadly sensible.

A four-year procurement is being proposed to maintain continuity in funeral-related services.

This is one of those areas where quality should matter every bit as much as cost.

This is an exceptionally sensitive service.

I would want reassurance around:

safeguarding;
deceased-person handling;
dignity;
provider resilience;
inspection;
contract monitoring;
quality weighting in the tender.

Not everything needs to become a political battlefield.

But everything still needs proper oversight.

Item 9 — Community Safety Strategy

Another strategy.

Another glossy set of ambitions.

ASB.

Violence.

Exploitation.

Domestic abuse.

Hate crime.

Modern slavery.

Organised crime.

Community cohesion.

All important.

But there is an awkward bit.

The strategy is expected to be delivered largely through existing resources and partnership arrangements.

That immediately raises the question:

With what capacity?

If crime and vulnerability are becoming more complex, then which officers are doing more?

Which police resources are increasing?

Which enforcement teams have spare capacity?

What are the measurable targets?

What will residents actually see improve?

Residents do not experience “strategic alignment”.

They experience whether somebody responds when their road is plagued by ASB.

Whether nuisance motorcycles are dealt with.

Whether drug dealing is tackled.

Whether repeat offenders are stopped.

Whether victims get help.

July already gave us a new ASB Policy.

September now gives us a broader Community Safety Strategy.

Fine.

Now show us the outcomes.

Item 10 — Enhanced Assessment Beds: This One Needs Answers

This is probably the clearest governance failure-risk in the pack.

The Council currently commissions 10 non-complex beds at Hilltop Lodge and four complex beds at The Gables.

The contracts expire on:

30 September 2026.

That deadline was not a surprise.

Back in March, Cabinet approved procurement of replacement arrangements starting on 1 October.

Now we are in September and the Council is asking for interim extensions because the replacement procurement is not ready.

The September report openly says it was not possible to complete procurement and mobilisation within the original timetable.

So the obvious question is:

Why?

Not:

“What happens now?”

We know what happens now.

The Council has to extend the service because vulnerable people cannot simply be left without it.

The question is:

What happened between March and September?

Who owned the programme?

Which milestones slipped?

When was the Cabinet Member informed?

Was the problem market capacity?

Officer capacity?

Procurement?

Specification?

Legal issues?

This is exactly the sort of thing Reform said it wanted to get underneath.

Approve continuity.

Protect residents.

But demand the lessons.

Item 11 — Regional Care Cooperative

This one has real potential.

Sandwell is being asked to accept up to £1.7m of Department for Education funding and act as the Lead Local Authority and accountable body for a West Midlands Regional Care Cooperative.

Regional commissioning could be a good thing.

Councils acting together may gain more negotiating power.

It could reduce reliance on expensive spot placements.

It could improve placement sufficiency.

It could improve fostering capacity.

Good.

But “accountable body” is not ceremonial wording.

It means Sandwell carries responsibility.

Across multiple authorities.

For funding.

Governance.

Data.

Delivery.

Compliance.

Possibly grant clawback.

So Cabinet should ask:

Why Sandwell?

What due diligence has been done?

What liability sits with us if another authority gets something wrong?

Are all administration costs recoverable?

How many additional staff are required?

Who audits the arrangement?

What happens when the Government money stops?

And perhaps most importantly:

Which decisions come back to elected councillors and which disappear under delegated authority?

Because delegation is necessary.

But the more major programmes Cabinet delegates, the more important it becomes to keep visible political oversight.

Item 12 — Finally, Some Proper Scrutiny

This report deserves credit.

The Children’s Services and Education Scrutiny Board has carried out a review into the transition to adulthood for care-experienced young people.

It involved briefing sessions, engagement with services, visits, Sandwell Children’s Trust, Personal Advisers and — importantly — care-experienced young people themselves.

That is what scrutiny should look like.

Gather evidence.

Talk to people.

Hear lived experience.

Challenge services.

Develop recommendations.

Then require Cabinet to respond.

Cabinet can approve all, some or none of the recommendations, but must respond.

This is exactly the sort of work that should be strengthened.

Not treated as an irritation.

Not bypassed.

Not sidelined.

Proper scrutiny helps good administrations.

It does not weaken them.

So What Should Reform Do on Wednesday?

This is not a blog saying:

“Reform has failed.”

It hasn’t.

They have been running Sandwell for only a few months.

Much of what is in these reports is inherited.

The SEND system did not suddenly develop a £34.7m problem because Reform won an election in May.

The Children’s Trust deficit did not appear because Ray Nock became Leader.

Capital slippage and procurement issues have histories.

That distinction matters.

But Reform owns what happens next.

That is equally important.

They inherited the problems.

They now inherit responsibility for asking the questions.

And that is where July disappointed me.

This meeting is an opportunity to do better.

The Critical Friend Test

If I were sitting on Cabinet, I would have five questions written at the top of every report:

What has gone wrong?

What is the real financial exposure?

Who owns fixing it?

When will we know whether it worked?

What will residents actually notice?

If the officer presentation does not answer those questions...

Ask them.

If the first answer is vague...

Ask again.

If a report needs more work...

Send it back.

That is not confrontation.

That is governance.

One Final Thought

I want Reform to succeed.

I've said it before and I will continue saying it.

But success is not measured by how quickly Cabinet gets through the agenda.

It is measured by whether the right decisions survive the right scrutiny.

This week's papers contain a £34.7m SEND High Needs overspend, an £18.2m Children’s Trust deficit, another £3.3m SEND transport pressure, major Adult Social Care pressures, millions of pounds of unspent Disabled Facilities Grant, more capital slippage and a procurement timetable that has already failed once.

There is good work in the pack too.

The children and young people's engagement strategy deserves support.

The care-experienced young people scrutiny review is encouraging.

Regional care commissioning may prove very worthwhile.

But a good Cabinet does not choose between positivity and scrutiny.

It does both.

So my message to Reform is simple:

You told us Sandwell needed change.

You told us officers needed stronger political challenge.

You told us the old culture had to go.

Fine.

Wednesday is another chance to show us.

Read the papers.

Challenge the assumptions.

Ask the difficult questions.

Own the decisions.

And please — this time — take as long as the business deserves.

Because Sandwell does not need another Cabinet that simply processes reports.

It needs one that governs.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #Cabinet #SEND #ChildrensTrust #AdultSocialCare #CouncilFinance #Scrutiny #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #CommunitySafety #LocalGovernment

Monday, 31 August 2026

FRIAR PARK: HOW MANY TIMES DO RESIDENTS HAVE TO ASK BEFORE SOMEONE GIVES A STRAIGHT ANSWER?

There is something seriously wrong when residents have to spend months chasing councils, public bodies and elected representatives simply to find out what is happening in their own community.

That is exactly where we are with Friar Park.

We are not dealing with a tiny planning application.

We are dealing with a proposed 600+ home urban village, major brownfield remediation, contaminated land, flood risk, air quality, drainage, transport, schools, SEND provision, biodiversity, public open space, developer procurement and millions of pounds of public money.

And yet trying to get clear, complete and joined-up answers has become an exhausting exercise in delay, deflection, partial disclosure and being passed from one organisation to another.

Residents deserve better than this.

A major regeneration scheme — but no straight line to the truth

Friar Park has been discussed, planned, masterplanned, funded, procured and promoted for years.

There have been consultants.

There have been Cabinet reports.

There have been developer selection exercises.

There have been remediation strategies.

There has been Environment Agency engagement.

There have been planning applications.

There have been funding arrangements involving Sandwell Council and the West Midlands Combined Authority.

There has been political promotion.

But when residents ask for the underlying evidence, the experience is very different.

Too often the answer is:

“NIL.”

Or:

“Too broad.”

Or:

“Information withheld.”

Or:

“Ask somebody else.”

Or:

“Go to the ICO.”

That is not transparency.

That is a system that appears far better at moving projects forward than it is at answering the people who have to live with the consequences.

Sandwell Council — too many NILs, too many later disclosures

We have submitted a number of FOI and EIR requests concerning Friar Park and associated planning applications.

Too often Sandwell's initial position has been that little or no relevant recorded information is held.

“NIL.”

Again.

And again.

Then, after challenge, more documents appear.

That happened around DC/23/68742.

Additional contaminated-land and other material emerged after the original response.

It has happened around DC/25/70154.

Later-disclosed correspondence showed active technical discussion over noise calculations and amended drawings.

That is precisely why confidence is being damaged.

If later disclosures show active officer-to-applicant and officer-to-consultant dialogue, how are residents supposed to accept without question earlier responses suggesting almost nothing else exists?

This is not about demanding every internal email for the sake of it.

It is about whether searches are being carried out properly and whether requests are being interpreted so narrowly that relevant material is being missed.

When we challenge this, too often we do not receive a proper substantive explanation.

Instead, the conversation eventually becomes:

Take it to the Information Commissioner.

So we have.

That should concern Sandwell's new political leadership.

Residents should not repeatedly have to involve a national regulator simply to establish whether their own council has adequately searched for records about major planning decisions.

DC/25/71072 — four months and hardly any visible explanation

Take the latest 18-home application at Friar Park.

DC/25/71072 was considered by Planning Committee on 1 April 2026.

The formal permission was not issued until 10 August 2026.

More than four months later.

When we checked the public planning portal, there was very little obvious material explaining what happened during that period.

There is a CIL liability acknowledgement.

Then the final decision.

So what was happening in between?

Were conditions being negotiated?

Was drainage being discussed?

Was Biodiversity Net Gain unresolved?

Were there legal issues?

Were technical matters being settled?

Were any plans or conditions altered?

Who authorised the final notice?

We should not have to guess.

So yet again, we have had to submit another information request.

Think about that.

A major planning decision is made in April.

Formal permission appears in August.

The public record gives little obvious explanation.

And the burden falls on residents to reconstruct the audit trail through FOI.

That is exactly the kind of thing that breeds mistrust.

Twenty-four conditions — and residents are supposed to be reassured

The final permission for DC/25/71072 contains 24 conditions.

Twenty-four.

These include matters concerning:

contaminated land,

surface-water drainage,

foul drainage,

dust,

construction management,

ecology,

Biodiversity Net Gain,

habitat management,

landscaping,

and environmental controls.

Some conditions are normal in planning.

Nobody is pretending otherwise.

But there is a wider pattern here that cannot simply be brushed aside.

Important technical issues keep being pushed into conditions to be resolved later.

Residents are told the concerns are dealt with.

But when you actually read the permission, the detail often still has to be submitted, investigated, approved or monitored after permission has been granted.

That is why people are asking whether this has become a culture of:

Approve first. Sort the difficult bits later.

That is not an allegation.

It is a legitimate concern based on what the actual permissions say.

Contaminated land is not a side issue

Friar Park has a complicated history.

Historic remediation material prepared for WMCA and Sandwell records former sewage-treatment infrastructure, waste deposits, made ground and contamination concerns.

The issues identified include metals, hydrocarbons, ammonia, asbestos, ground gas and risks to controlled waters.

Potential pathways include dust, fibres, groundwater and surface waters.

The remediation strategy itself anticipated excavation, treatment, movement, reuse or disposal of material.

So when residents raise concerns about dust, disturbed soils or environmental monitoring, these are not wild theories.

They are issues documented in the professional evidence itself.

And yet getting clear answers about remediation has been anything but straightforward.

Environment Agency — information eventually, but only after a fight

We have also had major difficulties obtaining information from the Environment Agency.

An earlier request was refused as manifestly unreasonable because it was considered too broad.

So we refined it.

Then more information emerged.

Some material concerning regulatory and permitting matters was withheld under another EIR exception.

So we challenged that too.

An internal review followed.

Then we had to make a separate request for flood information.

Eventually, we received useful flood-model data.

But even that raised another question.

The model supplied is identified as:

River Tame – 2009.

We are in 2026.

That does not automatically mean the model is invalid.

But it certainly raises a reasonable question about whether a 17-year-old model is sufficiently current for a major housing development and remediation scheme today.

So what have we had to do?

Write again.

Ask whether it remains suitable.

Ask whether updated modelling is required.

Ask whether updated modelling has already been discussed behind the scenes.

Ask whether current climate-change allowances need to be applied.

Again, why are residents constantly forced to ask the next question because the first answer never gives the whole picture?

Flood risk is being split between organisations

The EA itself makes clear that it deals primarily with main-river flooding.

Surface water?

Sandwell as Lead Local Flood Authority.

Groundwater?

Again, other responsibilities.

Sewer flooding?

The water company.

So who is joining this all together?

That is the question.

River Tame flood risk cannot be assessed in isolation.

Surface-water runoff cannot be assessed in isolation.

Sewer capacity cannot be assessed in isolation.

Groundwater cannot be assessed in isolation.

Remediation and disturbed contaminated ground cannot be assessed in isolation.

Then hundreds of homes cannot be assessed separately as if the wider cumulative picture does not exist.

Residents live in the real world.

Not in organisational silos.

WMCA — another wall of resistance

The West Midlands Combined Authority has also been difficult.

WMCA has played a major role in Friar Park.

It has been involved in land, regeneration, remediation and funding.

It has been part of the machinery moving the project forward.

Yet when we sought detailed information about remediation, funding, regulatory engagement and environmental oversight, we again encountered refusal, review requests, refined requests and repeated chasing.

Commercial sensitivity exists.

Of course it does.

Nobody serious disputes that.

But commercial sensitivity cannot become a convenient fog around a publicly backed regeneration project.

Residents do not need every tender price or negotiation tactic.

They do need to know:

what commitments have been made,

what housing assumptions underpinned procurement,

what public money is at risk,

what delivery deadlines exist,

what happens if planning requires fewer homes,

and whether environmental safeguards are genuinely capable of changing the scheme.

These are basic accountability questions.

A developer can be selected before residents know the final scheme

Keepmoat has already been selected as preferred development partner.

Again, that is not automatically improper.

But it matters.

Because by the time ordinary residents eventually see the full planning application, substantial commercial and strategic decisions may already have been taken.

Masterplan.

Funding.

Procurement.

Developer selection.

Housing numbers.

Delivery expectations.

Remediation.

Regulatory engagement.

Then later comes the formal planning application.

That creates a very obvious concern.

How genuinely open is the later planning process if so much of the project has already gathered momentum?

If planning evidence says fewer homes are appropriate, can the scheme shrink?

If infrastructure evidence says more land is needed for schools or open space, can the scheme change?

If air quality or noise requires bigger buffers, can the developer lose plots?

If remediation requires a different layout, will that be accepted?

These questions need straight answers.

Not public-relations language.

Where is the cumulative assessment?

The biggest planning failure we keep coming back to is fragmentation.

We have already seen:

DC/23/68742 – 105 homes

then amendments,

then:

DC/25/71072 – 18 more homes

That takes that development area to 123 plots.

Alongside that sits the proposed FPUV scheme of another 600+ homes.

So stop looking at each application as though it exists in a vacuum.

Where is the assessment of the total effect on:

traffic,

air pollution,

schools,

SEND,

Tame Bridge,

roads,

drainage,

surface water,

health services,

public transport,

open space,

ecology,

and community infrastructure?

The Council's own air-quality policy refers to cumulative impacts from known developments.

So where is the cumulative Friar Park assessment?

We have asked.

We are still waiting for convincing answers.

Secondary schools — still no proper local answer

One of the most frustrating issues is education.

We have repeatedly raised secondary-school capacity.

We have raised the history of the site and the earlier expectation of education provision.

We have raised the impact of hundreds of new homes.

And what do we get?

Broad Sandwell-wide statistics.

References to spare places elsewhere.

General statements.

That does not answer the question.

What is the actual long-term secondary-school position for Friar Park and Wednesbury if this entire development programme goes ahead?

Not today.

Not one year group in isolation.

Not the whole borough averaged together.

The actual local picture over the life of the development.

Why is that so difficult to obtain?

SEND — national policy is not a local capacity plan

The same applies to SEND.

We have raised local SEND provision.

We have raised pressure on places.

We have raised out-of-area provision.

We have raised transport implications.

And too often the response moves immediately to national government policy.

That is not an answer.

Parents in Friar Park cannot send their children to a White Paper.

They need actual provision.

Actual places.

Actual transport.

Actual support.

If hundreds of homes are coming, where is the local SEND capacity assessment?

Show us.

Antonia Bance MP — housing, housing, housing is not enough

We have written extensively to Antonia Bance MP.

Her earlier response placed heavy emphasis on the need for new housing.

Fine.

Housing is needed.

But “we need housing” cannot become an answer to every environmental and infrastructure concern.

We wrote back.

We set out the local issues.

Schools.

SEND.

Traffic.

Air quality.

Flooding.

Remediation.

Infrastructure.

Transparency.

Cumulative impact.

We chased.

We have chased again.

And we are still struggling to obtain a substantive response to the actual questions being asked.

That is not good enough from the local MP on a development of this scale.

If the MP supports the scheme, say so.

If she believes 600+ homes are appropriate, explain why.

If she believes schools can cope, provide the evidence.

If she believes infrastructure is adequate, tell us what she has checked.

If she believes the environmental safeguards are sufficient, explain what evidence she has reviewed.

What residents do not need is another general statement about the housing crisis.

We already know there is a housing crisis.

We are asking whether this scheme, on this site, at this scale, is being properly planned.

Sarah Coombes MP — still waiting for meaningful engagement

We have also written to Sarah Coombes MP because the consequences of Friar Park are not confined to one parliamentary constituency.

Traffic crosses boundaries.

Air pollution crosses boundaries.

Rail passengers cross boundaries.

School journeys cross boundaries.

Bescot does not disappear because somebody draws a constituency line on a map.

We sent a detailed briefing.

We followed it up.

We have not received the level of engagement these cross-boundary issues warrant.

Again, that is disappointing.

Residents should not have to repeatedly chase elected representatives to get them interested in a major development affecting neighbouring communities.

Council leadership — a change of party should mean a change of culture

Sandwell now has a Reform administration.

That administration inherited much of this project.

It did not create the historic contamination.

It did not initiate every earlier planning decision.

It did not create the original WMCA arrangements.

But it is now responsible for what happens next.

That means the new leadership has a choice.

It can inherit the old culture of:

minimal answers,

officer-driven processes,

technical deflection,

poor public engagement,

and “go to the ICO if you don't like it.”

Or it can change it.

We have tried to engage the Council Leader.

The response and level of engagement has not matched the seriousness of the issue.

That needs to change.

If Reform came into Sandwell promising a different way of doing things, Friar Park is a very good place to prove it.

Local councillors — where is the leadership?

And where are our local councillors in all this?

This is not some abstract strategic-planning exercise.

It affects real residents.

Their streets.

Their schools.

Their environment.

Their air.

Their journeys.

Their parks.

Their children's futures.

Local councillors should be demanding the evidence before residents have to.

They should be asking officers why information is difficult to obtain.

They should be demanding cumulative assessments.

They should be asking whether infrastructure is keeping pace.

They should be explaining decisions publicly.

They should be standing between residents and opaque bureaucracy.

Instead, far too much of the digging is being done by residents themselves.

That is backwards.

Pride in Place — keep your hands off the community money

And now we have Pride in Place.

Up to £20 million over ten years.

That money is supposed to be about the community.

It must not become a convenient back-door funding source for Friar Park Urban Village.

Not for remediation.

Not for developer obligations.

Not for infrastructure that should properly be funded by the development.

Not for statutory services the Council should already provide.

Not for filling holes elsewhere in regeneration budgets.

There must be a clear firewall.

Residents should be able to see exactly what Pride in Place money is being spent on.

Every pound.

Every project.

Every decision.

Who proposed it.

Who approved it.

Who benefits.

Anything less invites suspicion.

Too much is happening behind the curtain

This is perhaps the central problem.

When you put everything together, the authorities clearly possess a huge amount of information.

Consultant reports.

Technical studies.

Procurement documentation.

Masterplans.

Regulatory correspondence.

Funding agreements.

Remediation strategies.

Planning records.

Developer submissions.

Internal emails.

Yet residents continually find themselves asking for basic information and receiving either fragments or silence.

That contradiction is becoming impossible to ignore.

There is enough information to procure developers, secure funding and progress regeneration — but apparently not enough information to give residents straight answers.

How does that work?

We should not have to become investigators

This is a council area.

Not a crime scene.

Residents should not have to behave like investigators.

We should not have to:

submit FOIs,

chase overdue FOIs,

request internal reviews,

challenge “NIL” responses,

submit EIRs,

refine EIRs,

challenge exemptions,

write to the ICO,

search planning portals,

compare committee reports,

download technical appendices,

trace Cabinet decisions,

search WMCA records,

and repeatedly chase MPs,

just to understand what is happening.

Public authorities should publish enough information proactively that ordinary residents can follow the project without needing a law degree, planning qualification and unlimited spare time.

At the moment, that is not happening.

This is what transparency should look like

If Sandwell, WMCA, the EA and the elected representatives involved believe this project is sound, then prove it.

Publish a single clear public evidence base.

Show:

the remediation strategy,

the contamination risks,

the flood evidence,

the current River Tame modelling,

the surface-water strategy,

the air-quality evidence,

the cumulative traffic assessment,

the school capacity projections,

the SEND assessment,

the infrastructure plan,

the housing numbers,

the affordable-housing commitment,

the open-space calculation,

the BNG strategy,

the funding streams,

the developer obligations,

and the project timetable.

Then residents can make an informed judgement.

That is transparency.

What we have now is a jigsaw puzzle where the public is expected to find the pieces.

We are not going away

There is sometimes an assumption in public bodies that if you delay long enough, residents will lose interest.

We won't.

If an answer is incomplete, we will challenge it.

If information is withheld, we will test whether that withholding is justified.

If internal reviews fail to address the substance, we will escalate to the ICO.

If planning decisions are unclear, we will trace the audit trail.

If elected representatives fail to respond, we will say so publicly.

If Pride in Place starts drifting away from genuine community control, we will challenge that too.

That is not troublemaking.

That is accountability.

My message to everyone involved is simple

To Sandwell Council:

Stop making residents drag information out of you.

To WMCA:

Stop hiding the public-interest story behind commercial and procedural barriers.

To the Environment Agency:

Give residents clear explanations, not just technical datasets and legal exemptions.

To Antonia Bance MP:

Answer the questions actually being asked, not the easier question about whether Britain needs more houses.

To Sarah Coombes MP:

Engage properly with the cross-boundary consequences.

To Sandwell's political leadership:

If you promised change, show us.

To local councillors:

Start leading on this rather than waiting for residents to do the work.

And to those progressing Friar Park Urban Village:

If the scheme is safe, sustainable, properly funded and properly planned, you should have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

So stop making scrutiny so difficult.

Wednesbury deserves regeneration.

But it deserves something else just as much:

The truth.
The evidence.
Straight answers.
And a genuine voice before the important decisions are already effectively made.

#FriarPark #FriarParkUrbanVillage #Wednesbury #Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #WMCA #EnvironmentAgency #Planning #PlanningWatch #ContaminatedLand #FloodRisk #RiverTame #AirQuality #SEND #Schools #Infrastructure #Biodiversity #PrideInPlace #FOI #EIR #ICO #Transparency #Accountability #CommunityVoice #WednesburyActionGroup #StraightAnswers

Saturday, 29 August 2026

48A Churchfields Road: Retrospective Planning, Coal Risk and the Sandwell Council Fog Machine

There are planning applications that make residents raise an eyebrow.

Then there are planning applications that make residents ask whether the whole system has lost the plot.

DC/26/71952 — 48A Churchfields Road, Wednesbury, WS10 9DY falls firmly into the second category.

On paper, this is described as a retrospective new dwelling.

That sounds neat, tidy and administrative.

It is not.

This is a completed dwelling being brought back through the planning system after the event, in a street where residents are already raising serious concerns about HMOs, enforcement, landlord management, anti-social behaviour, safeguarding, weak communication and the council’s inability to join up its own departments.

And to make matters worse, the Coal Authority has raised substantive concern.

So this is not just another planning file.

This is a test of whether Sandwell Council has learned anything at all.

The petition Sandwell Council cannot ignore

Residents have launched a petition titled:

Stop the growth of HMOs in Churchfields Road and Wednesbury

Link here:

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-growth-of-hmos-in-churchfields-road-and-wednesbury

That petition needs to be treated as formal resident evidence.

Not dismissed.
Not ignored.
Not quietly parked.
Not filed under “community noise”.
Not met with the usual council script about taking matters seriously while nothing visible changes.

Residents are saying Churchfields Road and wider Wednesbury are under pressure from HMO growth, retrospective development, poor enforcement and weak council oversight.

Whether every allegation is ultimately proven is for proper investigation.

But the fact that residents feel strongly enough to organise, petition and gather evidence tells its own story.

Churchfields Road is not just a road name on a planning portal.

It is a warning.

What the application actually says

The application form for DC/26/71952 describes the proposal as:

“New dwelling (retrospective)”

It states that work started on 1 July 2021 and was completed on 1 July 2022. It also says the proposal is for one market housing unit, with 4+ bedrooms, and refers to previous planning/enforcement references DC/19/63216 and ENF/26/13186.

So let us be clear.

This is not a little side extension.
This is not a minor tidy-up.
This is not a normal householder application.

This is an already-built dwelling being regularised years after work began.

That should make councillors extremely cautious.

Because if retrospective applications are treated as routine, the message to everyone else is obvious:

Build first.
Argue later.
Regularise eventually.

That is not planning control.

That is planning surrender with a validation date.

The plans raise obvious questions

The existing floor plan shows a property with Bedroom 1, Bedroom 2, Bedroom 3 and Bedroom 4, bathrooms, a kitchen and a loft area marked as storage.

The site-location plan places the property within the existing Churchfields Road residential setting.

Residents are therefore entitled to ask:

What was originally approved?
What was actually built?
Does the building match the approved plans?
Were any conditions discharged?
Were proper site inspections carried out?
What does the enforcement reference relate to?
Why is this being dealt with retrospectively now?
Who is responsible for the property?
Who manages it?
Is it being used exactly as described?
Has it been checked against HMO licensing records?

These are not awkward questions.

They are obvious questions.

And if residents are having to ask them because the council has not already joined the dots, that is the problem.

The Coal Authority has raised substantive concern

This is the part that should stop any casual approval in its tracks.

The Coal Authority response dated 19 August 2026 raises “Substantive Concern”. It says the site lies within a Development High Risk Area and refers to coal-mining legacy features that may affect public safety and surface stability.

That alone should make everyone pause.

But it gets worse.

The Coal Authority also says it does not appear that its Planning team was consulted on any discharge of condition application for the site, and it does not appear that intrusive site investigations have been undertaken.

Let that sink in.

A dwelling has already been built.
The application is retrospective.
The site is in a mining-risk area.
And the Coal Authority is raising substantive concern about whether proper investigation and evidence has been provided.

If that does not put the brakes on, what does?

A subsidence hole with a committee report taped to it?

Why is a 2016 coal report being relied on?

The uploaded Coal Mining Risk Assessment is dated September 2016. It was prepared for proposed development at 50 Churchfields Road, described as either an extension to the existing house or a separate residence within the property.

This matters.

A 2016 report is not the same as a fresh, clear, post-construction explanation of what was actually built, what investigations were actually carried out, what risks were actually found, and what mitigation was actually used.

The Coal Authority’s concern appears to be exactly that: the evidence is not good enough for an already-built dwelling in a Development High Risk Area.

So Sandwell Council should not be asking, “Can we regularise this?”

It should be asking:

“Is this safe, properly evidenced, properly inspected, and properly lawful?”

That is a very different question.

Biodiversity Net Gain: another example of after-the-event planning

The applicant’s Biodiversity Net Gain statement says a BNG assessment is not required because the dwelling was constructed before statutory BNG requirements came into effect.

That may be technically arguable.

But it also exposes the wider problem with retrospective planning.

When development happens first and paperwork follows later, safeguards become after-the-event explanations instead of proper upfront scrutiny.

Residents are left hearing the same message again and again:

“By the time you found out, it had already happened.”

That is not how trust is built.

The objection raises wider concerns

The uploaded objection raises concerns about unauthorised changes, parking, visibility, footway impact, noise, disturbance, residential amenity and wider community impact.

Further resident evidence shared separately raises even more serious concerns involving alleged threats, police involvement, vulnerable tenants, domestic abuse concerns, safeguarding concerns, absentee management and residents being left to deal with incidents themselves.

I am not publishing private names, vulnerable people’s details, door numbers or raw allegations as fact.

That would be irresponsible.

But it would be equally irresponsible for Sandwell Council to shrug and treat this as just another planning file.

When residents are reporting these kinds of concerns, the council should be joining up:

Planning.
Planning Enforcement.
Building Control.
Private Sector Housing.
HMO Licensing.
Environmental Health.
ASB.
Community Safety.
Adult Safeguarding.
Children’s Safeguarding.
West Midlands Police.

Not passing residents from one department to another like a parcel nobody wants to sign for.

Residents should not be used as unpaid enforcement staff

One of the most worrying things residents have reported is that they feel they have been “conversation managed” and asked to provide names, door numbers and identifying details, even after warning the council this could put them at risk.

That is unacceptable.

Residents are not HMO inspectors.
Residents are not police officers.
Residents are not safeguarding investigators.
Residents are not landlord-tracing officers.
Residents are not unpaid council enforcement staff.

The council has powers residents do not have.

The council can inspect.
The council can check records.
The council can coordinate departments.
The council can contact landlords and agents.
The council can involve safeguarding and police partners.
The council can use statutory enforcement powers.

So why are residents being asked to do risky doorstep detective work?

Here is the blunt line:

Sandwell Council cannot outsource enforcement intelligence to frightened residents and then call it community involvement.

The landlord contact issue needs urgent explanation

Residents have also reported that they had to provide the council with acting-landlord contact information because the council allegedly did not know who the responsible contact was.

If that is correct, it is astonishing.

How can there be effective HMO licensing, tenant protection, private rented sector enforcement, safeguarding coordination or community safety if the council does not know who is responsible for a property?

How are residents supposed to feel safe if landlords, agents or managing parties are absent, rarely attend and neighbours are left dealing with the fallout when things kick off?

This is exactly why residents are losing trust.

They are not seeing a joined-up council.

They are seeing silos.

One department looking at plans.
Another looking at licensing.
Another waiting for enforcement.
Another dealing with ASB.
Another dealing with safeguarding.
Another asking residents for more information.

Meanwhile, residents are living with the consequences.

Licensing is not planning

Sandwell has introduced borough-wide HMO licensing.

Fine.

But licensing is not planning.

Licensing can deal with safety, standards and management once a property is operating as an HMO.

It does not give residents a planning voice where small HMOs can still slip through without planning permission.

It does not properly assess cumulative HMO concentration.

It does not protect family housing by itself.

It does not solve parking pressure.

It does not stop streets changing one property at a time.

That is why Article 4 matters.

Sandwell needs an Article 4 evidence base for streets like Churchfields Road and Wednesbury more widely.

If the council has enough concern to license HMOs borough-wide, it should have enough concern to map them, track them, enforce against them and bring forward Article 4 controls where evidence supports it.

Otherwise, licensing risks becoming another spreadsheet while residents are left dealing with real life.

Reform now owns the response

Let us be clear.

Much of this mess has built up over years.

The previous Labour administration cannot wash its hands of Sandwell’s planning fog, weak enforcement culture, poor transparency and the slow collapse of resident trust.

But Reform now controls Sandwell Council.

So Reform now owns the response.

Not the historic mess.

The response.

And Churchfields Road is now a test case.

Reform councillors should not accept a bland officer update.
They should not accept “residents can report concerns online”.
They should not accept another circular tour of council departments.
They should not accept casual retrospective regularisation where the Coal Authority has raised substantive concern.

They should demand a proper joined-up review.

A named senior lead officer.
A multi-department case conference.
A street-level HMO and enforcement review.
A risk protocol for residents.
A check of landlord and managing-agent details.
A cross-check of planning, licensing, ASB, safeguarding, police and council records.

This is not radical.

It is basic governance.

What Sandwell Council must now answer

Sandwell Council should answer:

What is the full planning history of 48A / 50 Churchfields Road?

What does ENF/26/13186 relate to?

Does the building as constructed match the approved plans?

Were all relevant conditions discharged?

Were Building Control inspections carried out?

Were Planning Enforcement inspections carried out?

Was the Coal Authority properly consulted at the right stages?

Why is a 2016 coal report being relied upon?

Have intrusive investigations and gas monitoring been carried out?

Is the property being used exactly as described?

Has it been checked against HMO licensing records?

Which Churchfields Road properties are licensed HMOs?

Which are suspected HMOs?

Which have pending licence applications?

Does the council hold correct landlord, owner, agent and acting-manager contact details?

Did residents have to supply those details?

Were residents asked to gather names, door numbers or identifying details despite raising safety concerns?

Was any risk assessment carried out before asking residents to gather information?

Has the Churchfields Road petition been treated as cumulative-impact evidence?

Who is the named senior officer responsible for coordinating the council response?

If the council cannot answer these questions clearly, it proves the point.

What should happen before DC/26/71952 is decided

This application should not be casually approved.

At minimum, Sandwell Council should defer determination until:

The Coal Authority’s substantive concern is fully resolved.

An updated coal-mining risk position is provided.

Intrusive investigations and gas monitoring are evidenced or properly justified.

The enforcement history is explained.

The council confirms whether the built dwelling matches any approval.

The lawful use is confirmed.

Planning Enforcement, Building Control, Private Sector Housing and HMO Licensing have all checked the property.

Parking, access, visibility, waste and residential amenity are properly assessed.

The Churchfields Road petition is considered as evidence of cumulative resident concern.

Anything less would be another exercise in papering over cracks.

And given the Coal Authority issue, that phrase feels uncomfortably appropriate.

This is not anti-tenant

Let us knock one lazy argument on the head.

This is not anti-tenant.

It is not about blaming people who rent, people who are vulnerable, people on low incomes, or people who need somewhere safe to live.

Quite the opposite.

Good housing matters.

Safe housing matters.

Responsible landlords matter.

Proper management matters.

Tenants are not protected by absentee landlords.
Residents are not protected by weak enforcement.
Vulnerable people are not protected by council departments failing to talk to each other.
Communities are not protected by planning decisions made in little sealed boxes.

Bad systems harm everyone.

Tenants and residents both deserve better.

Final thought

48A Churchfields Road is not just a retrospective planning application.

It is a test of Sandwell Council’s seriousness.

A test of whether Coal Authority concerns are properly respected.
A test of whether retrospective development is scrutinised properly.
A test of whether residents are listened to.
A test of whether HMO concerns are tracked.
A test of whether safeguarding and community safety are joined up.
A test of whether council departments can speak to each other.
A test of whether Reform councillors are prepared to grip the issue rather than inherit the fog.

Residents have done their bit.

They have objected.
They have petitioned.
They have gathered evidence.
They have warned the council.
They have raised safety concerns.
They have asked for joined-up action.

Now Sandwell Council needs to do its job.

Enough portals.
Enough fog.
Enough “report it again”.
Enough retrospective shrugging.
Enough asking residents to gather risky information.
Enough treating Churchfields Road as a set of separate files.

Churchfields Road needs action.

Not after the next incident.
Not after the next retrospective application.
Not after the next petition.

Now.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ChurchfieldsRoad #Wednesbury #HMOs #Article4 #PlanningWatch #PlanningEnforcement #RetrospectivePlanning #CoalAuthority #ResidentVoice #CommunitySafety #Safeguarding #ReformCouncil

SANDWELL REFORM SCRAPPED THE SANCTUARY LABEL — NOW SHOW US WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED

On 28 July 2026, Sandwell Council’s Reform administration made a very public political statement.

Leader Councillor Ray Nock moved the motion entitled “Our Borough Doesn’t Need Labels”, and the Council voted to stop subscribing to or seeking accreditation under the Borough/City of Sanctuary framework. Sandwell had held Council of Sanctuary recognition since 2023.

The argument put forward included Sandwell’s enormous housing pressures and residents waiting years for social housing.

Fine.

But removing a badge is the easy bit.

What has actually changed?

That is the question residents should now be asking the Reform leadership.

Because nearly five weeks after that Council vote, Sandwell Council's own website still says:

“Sandwell Council is a recognised Council of Sanctuary.”

The Borough of Sanctuary webpage remains online. The Borough of Sanctuary Strategy remains available. The page continues to promote the Sandwell Borough of Sanctuary Partnership and describes the Council's commitment to refugee and migrant communities.

So what exactly happened after the vote?

Was City of Sanctuary formally notified?

When was Sandwell's accreditation relinquished?

Has the Borough of Sanctuary Strategy been withdrawn?

Does the partnership still exist?

Were officers instructed to change anything?

Were policies reviewed?

Were contracts reviewed?

Were grants reviewed?

Were services reviewed?

Did any money actually get saved?

Or did Sandwell Council simply pass a politically attractive motion and then carry on much as before?

A MOTION IS NOT A POLICY RESET

This distinction matters.

The Government, not Sandwell Council, controls the asylum system.

Removing Council of Sanctuary status does not give Sandwell Council the power to prevent the Home Office placing asylum seekers in accommodation within the borough.

It does not by itself close an asylum hotel.

It does not by itself remove a Serco property.

It does not by itself reduce the housing waiting list.

It does not automatically release council houses for existing applicants.

And it does not rewrite national immigration law.

That does not mean the Council is powerless.

Far from it.

Sandwell can lobby government.

It can challenge disproportionate dispersal.

It can demand transparency about accommodation being placed within the borough.

It can rigorously enforce planning, HMO, housing and environmental health requirements within the powers available to it.

It can examine the impact of population pressures upon schools, SEND provision, healthcare, homelessness, community safety and other public services.

It can scrutinise every relevant grant and contract.

It can publish what it is doing.

And it can tell residents clearly what powers it has, what powers it does not have, and what representations it has made to Government.

So where is that programme of work?

£610,995 — HAS REFORM REVIEWED IT?

There is another issue which deserves proper scrutiny.

In January 2026, before Reform took control of Sandwell Council, the then administration approved a three-year consolidated grant worth £610,995 to Brushstrokes Community Project, covering the period from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2029.

Let us be absolutely clear about this.

This was not a Reform decision.

It was inherited.

The Cabinet report described Brushstrokes as providing support to vulnerable migrant communities, including asylum seekers, refugees, people at risk of destitution and homelessness, and others requiring support.

The consolidated arrangement brings together funding connected with Public Health, Housing Management, Voluntary Sector Support, Family Hubs and Sandwell Children's Trust.

Previous funding arrangements also included money connected with supporting contingency hotels and the Home Office Asylum Dispersal Grant.

The question for the new administration therefore isn't:

“Why did Reform approve it?”

They didn't.

The question is:

Has Reform reviewed it?

If your political position is sufficiently strong that Sandwell should relinquish Council of Sanctuary accreditation, surely it is reasonable to examine the actual policies, spending arrangements, contracts and grants operating in the same broad policy area.

What has been reviewed?

What remains unchanged?

What can legally be changed?

What cannot?

What is funded by central government?

What is funded from Sandwell's own resources?

What outcomes are being purchased?

And where public money is being spent, is Sandwell receiving full value for it?

Those are legitimate questions irrespective of somebody's political position on immigration.

THEN THERE IS THE NEW ASYLUM HOUSING MODEL

This is potentially much more important than the Sanctuary badge.

The Government has committed £500 million towards developing a new asylum accommodation model with local authorities.

The stated concept includes councils making basic alternative accommodation available temporarily for people awaiting decisions on asylum claims, with the Government saying it wants the investment eventually to leave a housing legacy for local communities.

A House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report recorded that 198 local authorities had expressed interest in participating in pilots testing localised asylum accommodation models.

That does not mean 198 councils signed up.

It means 198 expressed interest.

And there is an important information gap.

As recently as June 2026 the Government said locations and funding allocations were still being reviewed. It has also said some information concerning interested local authorities is commercially sensitive.

I have found no published evidence that Sandwell is one of the authorities selected for the scheme.

But equally, the absence of Sandwell from publicly reported shortlists does not prove that Sandwell never submitted an expression of interest.

That needs answering properly.

DID SANDWELL EXPRESS AN INTEREST?

This is therefore one of the questions I have now put directly to Sandwell Council under the Freedom of Information Act.

Between 1 January 2025 and the present:

Did Sandwell express an interest in the new asylum accommodation model?

Did it request information?

Did it apply?

Was it invited to participate?

Was it approached?

Was any business case prepared?

Was funding sought?

Were properties or bedspaces proposed?

And, importantly, who authorised any such submission?

There is another dimension.

If an expression of interest was submitted under the previous Labour administration, what did the incoming Reform administration do with it after taking control?

Continue it?

Withdraw it?

Change it?

Suspend it?

Or nothing at all?

Residents deserve a straight answer.

DON'T CONFUSE ASYLUM SEEKERS WITH REFUGEES

This debate also needs precision.

An asylum seeker awaiting a decision is not legally the same thing as somebody who has subsequently been granted refugee status.

Likewise, Afghan resettlement schemes are not the same thing as the general asylum dispersal system.

Sandwell previously accepted government Local Authority Housing Fund money for properties associated with Afghan resettlement.

Those arrangements need scrutiny too, but they should not simply be lumped together and described as “housing asylum seekers”.

Getting these distinctions right matters.

Otherwise councils and government can legitimately dismiss criticism because the terminology is wrong.

There are plenty of difficult questions to ask without getting basic facts wrong.

THE REAL TEST FOR REFORM

The Reform administration now controls Sandwell Council.

It chose to make Sanctuary status an issue.

It chose the motion.

It chose the political language.

It connected the debate with Sandwell's housing pressures.

Therefore it is entirely reasonable for residents to ask Reform to demonstrate what practical difference its decision has made.

Not another photograph.

Not another slogan.

Not another Facebook graphic.

Not another declaration about what Labour did before May.

Show us the work.

Has Sandwell challenged the Home Office over dispersal?

Has it asked for further placements to be restricted because of existing pressures?

Has it quantified the impact on public services?

Has it reviewed relevant expenditure?

Has it reviewed the Brushstrokes agreement?

Has it reviewed inherited migration and resettlement policies?

Has it established how many properties are involved in Home Office asylum accommodation across Sandwell?

Has it asked what effect concentrations of accommodation are having on individual neighbourhoods?

Has it examined the relationship with HMOs?

Has it strengthened enforcement?

Has it reviewed government grants?

Has it published any assessment of what withdrawing Sanctuary status actually achieves?

And has it established whether Sandwell has been involved in the Government's new asylum housing proposals?

These questions require answers.

THE WEBSITE ITSELF NOW SYMBOLISES THE PROBLEM

There is something almost absurd about the current situation.

Reform passed a Council motion saying Sandwell no longer needed the Sanctuary label.

Yet, at the time of writing on 29 August 2026, the Council's own website is still proudly telling residents:

“Sandwell Council is a recognised Council of Sanctuary.”

Perhaps it is simply an administrative delay.

If so, fix it.

But it also illustrates the wider problem beautifully.

Passing the motion was the easy part. Implementing change is the part that counts.

THE FOIs ARE NOW GOING IN

I have now submitted a focused Freedom of Information request asking Sandwell to disclose what was actually done following the 28 July decision and whether the Council has had any involvement in the Government's new asylum accommodation proposals.

Further tightly focused requests will look at the financial and property side rather than bundling everything into one enormous request.

Those will include questions around funding, grants, housing assets and the practical asylum accommodation picture within Sandwell.

This isn't about making allegations.

It is about obtaining records.

Then residents can judge the evidence for themselves.

REMOVING A BADGE IS NOT ENOUGH

Sandwell has very real problems.

Housing shortages.

HMOs.

Homelessness.

Pressure on GP services.

School places.

SEND provision.

Infrastructure.

Community cohesion.

Deprivation.

And residents who have spent years waiting for suitable social housing.

Those pressures deserve serious government.

Whatever someone's view of national immigration policy, pretending a Council of Sanctuary certificate is the source of all those problems would be far too simplistic.

But equally, a council cannot invoke those pressures to justify removing Sanctuary status and then refuse to explain what meaningful action follows.

If Reform's position is that Sandwell needs a fundamentally different approach, then deliver one.

Publish the evidence.

Challenge government where necessary.

Review the spending.

Review the contracts.

Review the housing implications.

Enforce the rules.

Tell residents what is happening.

And be transparent about Sandwell's involvement—or lack of involvement—in new government asylum accommodation schemes.

Because residents did not vote for a change of logo.

They voted for a change of administration.

Now we need to see whether that produces a change in outcomes.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #BoroughOfSanctuary #AsylumHousing #Migration #Refugees #SocialHousing #HousingCrisis #HMOs #FOI #FreedomOfInformation #Transparency #Accountability #LocalGovernment #PublicSpending #HomeOffice #SandwellPolitics #HousingPressure #CouncilWatch