Same Circle, Different Logos: When Community Governance Starts Eating Itself

Same Circle, Different Logos: When Community Governance Starts Eating Itself

There’s a point in any piece of local scrutiny where you stop asking
“Is this just one organisation?”
and start asking
“Hang on… why does this keep happening?”

Welcome to that point.

Over recent months I’ve been pulling together governance, funding and financial data relating to a small cluster of Sandwell-based organisations. What started as a single review has now become a full Master Foundation Document (MFD), cross-referenced, evidence-logged, and — crucially — escalated to regulators.

And the picture that emerges is… familiar.

Different names.
Different logos.
Same ecosystem.
Same patterns.
Same silence.

Let’s Start With the Money (Because It Always Starts There)

Take the Confederation of Bangladesh Organisations (CBO).

According to its published accounts (year ended 31 March 2025), this is not a small, informal “passing the biscuit tin” operation:

• Annual income: ~£352,000
• Total funds / reserves: ~£772,000
• Current assets: ~£491,000
• Fixed assets: ~£284,000
• Including freehold property valued at £250,000

That’s three-quarters of a million pounds in total funds.

Which means — and this is important — scrutiny is not only reasonable, it is proportionate.

Déjà Vu: Operating Deficits, But the Reserves Are Fine, Thanks

Here’s where the tune starts sounding familiar.

CBO’s accounts show:

• An operating deficit for the year
• At the same time as designated funds are maintained or increased
• Alongside substantial property and land holdings

Now, none of that is automatically improper. But when deficits coexist with healthy reserves and locked-away assets, the obvious question is:

What is the reserves policy actually for — and how is it being applied?

That question was asked.
It was asked politely.
It was asked in writing.

No response.

Same Table, Same Guests: The Consortium Connection

Public records show that CBO has acted as an organisational director of Sandwell Consortium CIC.

So has Bangladeshi Women’s Association.

Which means:

• Organisations that receive Consortium-linked funding
• Also sit within the Consortium’s governance structure
• While acting as delivery partners for Consortium-branded programmes

That doesn’t automatically mean anything improper is happening.

But it does mean that independence, conflict-of-interest management, and transparency matter more — not less.

When the same organisations keep reappearing at the commissioning table, the coordination table, and the delivery table, people are entitled to ask whether challenge has quietly left the room.

Current Assets: Cash, or “Money We’re Hoping Turns Up”?

Another familiar note in the accounts:

• Current assets of ~£491,000
• Creditors of just ~£3,700

Which raises the sort of dull but important question accountants love and PR teams don’t:

How much of that is cash in the bank — and how much is money owed, delayed, conditional, or dependent on delivery?

That question was also asked.

Still no reply.

Property, Land and “Income Generation”

The accounts reference:

• Freehold premises
• Land holdings
• Language around retail or income-generation activity

Again: not wrong.
But once charities drift towards development and trading, governance expectations increase sharply.

Is it primary purpose trading?
Ancillary?
Non-primary with a subsidiary?
Who signs off the risk?

Reasonable questions.

Still silence.

Attempts to Engage: Documented, Polite, Ignored

Let’s be very clear about process.

• 24 December 2025 — a detailed, evidence-based, non-accusatory email was sent to CBO trustees and senior management
• 19 January 2026 — a formal escalation followed, asking at minimum for acknowledgement or a response timetable

Both emails relied only on:

• Published accounts
• Public registers
• Verifiable facts

Both emails were ignored.

No acknowledgement.
No response.
No engagement.

Silence becomes part of the evidence when it’s repeated.

Escalation: Because At Some Point, You Have To

Given the lack of trustee engagement, matters were escalated appropriately.

On 20 January 2026, the Charity Commission for England and Wales formally acknowledged receipt of a Raising Concerns submission relating to CBO (reference CRM26:004945639).

The concerns raised focused on:

• Governance transparency
• Conflicts of interest
• Reserves and asset management
• Failure to engage with reasonable public-interest scrutiny

Assessment is now underway.

That is not drama.
That is process.

And Here’s the Bit That Really Matters

When you line up:

• CBO
• BWA
• Sandwell Consortium

…and compare governance roles, funding dependency, financial patterns, and responses to scrutiny, you don’t see three isolated cases.

You see a system.

A system where:

• The same organisations recur across governance and delivery
• Public funding is heavily relied upon
• Operating deficits coexist with protected reserves
• And scrutiny is met not with explanation, but with silence

None of this proves wrongdoing.

But it does explain why regulators, funders and the public are entitled to look more closely.

Final Thought

Transparency isn’t hostile.
Scrutiny isn’t personal.
And accountability isn’t optional once you’re handling public money, property assets, and six-figure reserves.

If organisations want public trust, they don’t get it by saying nothing.

They get it by answering.

#Sandwell #CharityGovernance #PublicMoney #Transparency #Accountability #VoluntarySector #SameOldCircle #FollowTheMoney #GovernanceMatters

When Silence Becomes an Answer: Governance, Safeguarding and Escalation

When Silence Becomes an Answer: Governance, Safeguarding and Escalation

Since our last blog, a significant volume of new information and corroborating evidence has come forward concerning governance, safeguarding, data handling and decision-making within Let’s Dance Again (LDA) and its activities at Wednesbury Town Hall and other venues.

What has emerged is not a single dispute, personality clash, or isolated incident — but a pattern of action reported independently by multiple former volunteers, members, performers and supporters over a sustained period of time.

A growing pattern, not one-off concerns

New material received since the last update includes:

• Safeguarding concerns relating to crowding, fire safety, evacuation procedures and the management of large numbers of older and potentially vulnerable people.
• Accounts of fire alarms being activated with no clear evacuation plan, no designated lead, and confusion about whether events should continue.
• Reports of large numbers of attendees being placed in upstairs or balcony areas, raising serious questions about accessibility and emergency egress.
• Multiple accounts of individuals who raised concerns being removed, excluded, or warned off, often without written reasons, evidence, or any appeal process.
• Questions about financial transparency, cash handling, and a lack of clarity about where money was going — raised by more than one person, at different times.

These accounts are consistent in nature, detail and outcome, even where the individuals involved had no connection to one another.

Efforts to seek clarification — and the silence that followed

Before taking any external action, formal written requests for clarification were sent to the trustees of Let’s Dance Again CIO.

Those requests:

• set out the concerns clearly,
• asked factual questions,
• and provided trustees with the opportunity to respond, explain, or correct the record.

No response was received. Not even an acknowledgement.

That silence matters. When trustees choose not to engage with reasonable requests for clarification on safeguarding, governance and data protection matters, it leaves no responsible option other than escalation.

Attempts at intimidation do not resolve facts

Since raising these issues, we have also received messages from a non-trustee volunteer making sweeping allegations, character attacks, and unsupported claims about others who have raised concerns.

These messages:

• have no legal standing,
• do not come from anyone with authority to speak on behalf of the charity,
• and do nothing to address the substantive issues raised.

We are not interested in personal attacks, informal conversations, or off-record discussions.
We are interested in evidence, governance, safeguarding, and accountability.

Attempts to deflect, intimidate or threaten do not change the underlying facts — and they have been logged accordingly.

Why matters have now been escalated

Given:

• the volume and consistency of evidence now received,
• the failure of trustees to engage or clarify,
• and the seriousness of the safeguarding and governance issues involved,

matters have now been formally escalated to the appropriate regulatory and authority bodies.

This was not a first step.
It was the last available step after reasonable attempts to resolve matters directly were ignored.

A call to others — in confidence

We are aware that there may be others who have been excluded, warned, removed, or discouraged from speaking, or who have experienced similar issues but have so far remained silent.

If that applies to you:

• you are invited to contact us,
• your information will be treated in strict confidence,
• and no material will be used or shared without consent.

Patterns only become visible when people feel safe to speak.

What this is — and what it is not

This is not a personal vendetta.
It is not about rumours or hearsay.
It is not about personalities.

It is about:

• safeguarding older and vulnerable people,
• proper governance of community organisations,
• lawful handling of personal data,
• and ensuring that concerns are addressed — not buried.

Silence, exclusion, and intimidation are not governance tools.

We will continue to document matters accurately, proportionately, and transparently — and will update when regulators or authorities respond.

#Governance #Safeguarding #CharityGovernance #TrusteeAccountability #GDPR #DataProtection #PublicInterest #Let’sDanceAgain #LDACIO #Wednesbury #WednesburyTownHall #Sandwell #RegulatoryOversight #Whistleblowing #Transparency #CallForEvidence

Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

If you read my last blog on Sandwell’s child abuse figures, you’ll remember the key issue: data continuity.

We had police-recorded child-abuse-related crime figures for Sandwell (2021–2024) — and a big gap for 2012–2020, which matters because that’s the era linked to the widely reported “6,226 allegations” figure (2012–2016).

At the time, West Midlands Police told us older data wasn’t available due to “system changes/issues”.

Since then, there’s been an update — and it changes the story significantly.

This update is about what has now been admitted, what is still being withheld in practice, and why selective political language at Sandwell Council doesn’t cut it.

1) What’s new: the data isn’t “not available” — it’s held, archived, and accessible in principle

West Midlands Police have now stated (in response to our follow-up FOI) that:

• “Crimes” is a legacy system
• Historical data is archived in a central database
• They store and have access to individual data lines
• They are developing applications to access it

So, let’s be plain:

The pre-2021 data is not “gone”.
It is held.

But…

2) The new barrier: “We could, but it would take more than 18 hours”

West Midlands Police say it is possible to build a search to retrieve what we asked for — but it would exceed 18 hours and therefore they are relying on FOIA section 12 (cost limit) to refuse.

They also say they can’t provide even aggregate totals until their application is “tested”.

So the position has shifted from:

“Not available”

to

“Held, but not retrievable within FOI time limits (right now)”

That matters, because it turns this from a “technical loss” story into a governance and transparency story.

If you can access the data lines, you can’t credibly pretend the years don’t exist — you can only argue about cost and effort.

And FOI law doesn’t allow public bodies to just shrug and walk away at that point.

3) The problem WMP now have: duty to help you narrow the request

When a public body relies on section 12, it also has a duty to advise and assist under FOI (section 16).

That means they should be offering practical options, such as:

• “We can do 2012–2016 only”
• “We can do one offence category only”
• “We can provide force-wide totals, if LPA breakdown is hard”
• “We can do two years at a time”

Instead, the response amounts to:
“Come back later, once our application is developed.”

That’s not transparency. That’s a holding pattern.

So the next step is already underway: internal review, and narrowed FOIs designed to test what is genuinely retrievable within the cost limit.

4) Why this matters in Sandwell specifically

Because Sandwell has a historic figure hanging over it — the widely reported 6,226 allegations (2012–2016).

If we can’t access consistent historic police data to compare with recent years, the public cannot:

• understand long-term trends
• assess whether safeguarding demand has changed
• test whether political “commitments” match reality
• track whether lessons were learned or quietly dropped

Data gaps aren’t just technical issues.
They become accountability gaps.

5) Meanwhile at Sandwell Council: big words, selective naming

Now for the part that should make anyone with a straight face slightly uncomfortable.

Police disclosures for 2021–2024 show hundreds of sexual offences against children each year in Sandwell.

And yet, at the most recent full council meeting, Labour’s safeguarding language has been carefully general.

Child abuse is mentioned in broad terms.
But Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) is not explicitly named.

That matters because:

• CSE is not “optional” safeguarding
• it’s not a footnote
• and historically, failure to name it clearly is how institutions end up “managing reputations” rather than managing risk

If your politics can’t name the risk plainly, it’s not safeguarding leadership — it’s comms management.

That’s not a legal allegation of motive.
It’s a political judgement based on what is — and isn’t — being said on the record.

6) What happens next

Here is what we are doing now:

1. Internal review of the latest WMP response, asking:

   • why older data was first described as “not available” when it is held
   • what narrowed request would be answerable within the cost limit
   • whether any existing aggregate reports / returns exist

2. New narrowed FOIs aimed at:

   • 2012–2016 only
   • or one offence group only
   • or a two-year slice (to test feasibility)

3. Continuing FOIs to Sandwell bodies to pin down:

   • what the 6,226 figure actually counted
   • what definitions were used
   • and what the updated series looks like, year by year

7) The simplest point of all

If you can say:

• “We hold it”
• “It’s archived”
• “We can access the data lines”

then the public is entitled to ask:

Why can’t you provide even basic historic totals — and what exactly needs to happen before you can?

Because safeguarding isn’t a PR campaign.
And child abuse figures aren’t something you “pause” until the software catches up.

#Sandwell #Safeguarding #ChildProtection #CSE #ChildSexualExploitation #FOI #Transparency #Accountability #WestMidlandsPolice #DataGovernance

Scrutiny Update: Still Listening (Just Not to You)

This meeting takes place today Tues 20th Jan and can be viewed live SNAC Live Link

Since my last blog on the Safer Neighbourhoods & Active Communities Scrutiny Board, a few things have happened.

None of them improve scrutiny.
All of them make it quieter.

🌧️ Weather Warning: Democracy Rescheduled (Public Voice Optional)

The original meeting was cancelled due to poor weather. Fair enough.
Ice is dangerous. Councillors slipping would be unfortunate.

But when the meeting was rescheduled, something else quietly disappeared.

The public voice.

I asked — politely — whether the Chair would use his discretion to allow public participation, particularly given that several agenda items directly overlap with work I (and others) have been deeply involved in.

The response was clear.

No public questions.
No questions via the Chair.
No real-time challenge at all.

Apparently, engagement is something the Council does around scrutiny — not something it tolerates during it.

🎭 Engagement, But Please Don’t Interrupt the Performance

This is where things start to feel a little theatrical.

The agenda is packed with:

• engagement strategies
• community reviews
• co-production language
• partnership rhetoric

And yet, when an actual member of the public asks to speak?

Curtain down.
House lights off.
Audience politely ushered out.

Engagement is clearly encouraged — just not the kind that might ask an awkward follow-up.

🗺️ Community Asset Mapping: Because Someone Has to Decide Who Counts

Since the last blog, it’s become even clearer that Community Asset Mapping isn’t a neutral technical exercise.

Maps don’t just describe reality.
They define it.

If you’re on the map:

• you’re visible
• you’re consulted
• you’re “a partner”

If you’re not:

• you’re informal
• you’re inconvenient
• you’re apparently not an asset

Friends Groups — volunteer-led, independent, occasionally critical — should probably be asking who decides what qualifies as “community value” and whether dissent comes with an expiry date.

Because invisibility by process is still exclusion.

🏘️ Housing, Trust, and the Strategy That Keeps Pretending

Another thing that hasn’t changed since the last blog:

You still cannot rebuild trust with engagement strategies while people are living in unsafe homes.

No number of surveys fixes a broken boiler.
No workshop repairs unsafe electrics.
No infographic replaces basic compliance.

Tenants don’t want to be engaged.
They want their homes fixed.

Scrutiny should be brave enough to say that out loud.

🤔 A Slightly Awkward Question About Scrutiny Independence

Here’s something that’s becoming harder to ignore.

Some members sitting on scrutiny panels are also employed by local MPs’ offices.

That may be entirely legitimate.
But it raises a basic governance question that nobody seems keen to ask:

Should there be declarations of interest?

Scrutiny exists to challenge power — not orbit it.

Declarations aren’t accusations.
They’re transparency.

And when public confidence is already fragile, choosing not to acknowledge potential conflicts isn’t neutral. It’s a decision.

🤝 The Voluntary Sector: Not “The Same Names” — The Same Unanswered Questions

Let’s be clear about something, because this is often deliberately blurred.

Yes, it’s true that the same small cluster of organisations keeps appearing across consultations, engagement exercises and delivery work.

And yes, wider engagement remains demonstrably poor — something the Council’s own reports have acknowledged time and again.

But the organisations named here are not being mentioned simply because they’re familiar faces.

They are being referenced because there are serious, unresolved governance and scrutiny concerns that cannot be brushed aside with warm words about partnership working.

Sandwell Consortium.
BWA.
CBO.
Let’s Dance Again.

These aren’t casual examples. They are organisations that:

• occupy influential positions within engagement and delivery frameworks
• are repeatedly relied upon as intermediaries or representative voices
• and, critically, raise legitimate questions around governance, transparency, safeguarding, mandate, and accountability

This is not about bad faith.
And it is certainly not about attacking the voluntary sector.

It is about scrutiny doing its job.

When organisations with unresolved governance concerns continue to be positioned as trusted conduits for community voice, scrutiny has a duty to pause and ask:

• what assurance has actually been obtained
• what risks are being managed
• and why challenge seems to evaporate once certain names are mentioned

The wider engagement failure — the fact that many voices never make it into the room at all — only makes this more serious, not less.

Because when engagement is already narrow, who gets amplified matters even more.

Communities are not monoliths.
They don’t speak with one voice.
And scrutiny should never pretend that they do.

🌳 Friends Groups: Still Turning Up, Still Uncomfortable

Friends Groups continue to do what they’ve always done:

• look after parks and green spaces
• raise wildlife welfare concerns
• question byelaws and policies
• ask awkward questions

They don’t have comms teams.
They don’t tick neat boxes.
They don’t always clap at the right moments.

Which is precisely why they matter.

Any system that filters out challenge in the name of cohesion isn’t creating harmony — it’s storing up bigger problems for later.

🪑 Final Thought (Because Apparently We Need One)

Scrutiny doesn’t work if:

• the public can’t speak
• challenge is choreographed
• independence is assumed rather than declared
• and engagement only flows one way

You can manage a meeting.
You can curate participation.
You can polish the narrative.

But you can’t build trust that way.

And once trust is gone, no amount of asset mapping will help you find it again.

#Sandwell #SNAC #Scrutiny #PublicVoice #CommunityEngagement #Governance #FriendsGroups #Transparency #HousingCrisis #VoluntarySector #Accountability #LocalDemocracy

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

🏛️ The Public, West Bromwich

The “White Elephant” That Somehow Managed to Be Packed

Ah yes.

The Public, West Bromwich.

That legendary civic disaster.

That infamous waste of money.

That building “nobody ever used”.

Except… they did.

In rather large numbers.

Repeatedly.

Right up until it was shut.

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

🐘 The Great White Elephant Fairy Tale

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

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

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

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

The problem is… it’s nonsense.

📊 Annoying Facts (Feel Free to Skip)

By the time politicians decided The Public had to go:

Around 451,000 people visited it in a single year

Over a million people used it across its lifetime

Visitor numbers were going up, not down

Galleries were programmed

Events calendars were full

Offices were occupied

The café was busy

People were actually… enjoying it

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

🎭 “Nobody Used It” (Apart From Everyone)

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

Apparently:

10,000 people a week don’t count

Tens of thousands at exhibitions don’t count

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

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

Fascinating methodology.

🛍️ Shock Horror: It Worked With New Square

Another popular line:

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

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

Turns out:

Shoppers like culture

Culture likes shoppers

People quite enjoy wandering into a gallery after Primark

Who knew?

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

🔌 So Why Was It Really Closed?

Here’s the awkward bit.

The Public didn’t fail. It was closed.

That’s not semantics — it’s reality.

Closure was:

A political decision

A strategic choice

A risk-management call

It was not:

Because the building was empty

Because nobody cared

Because it “didn’t work”

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

You do it because it’s inconvenient.

🎓 And Then Came the College (Cue Fog Machine)

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

We were told:

“This is sensible”

“This solves the problem”

“This secures the future”

What we were not given:

The full lease

The valuation

The schedules

The mysterious “Concordat”

Clear answers on who pays for what

A neat, end-to-end public account

FOIs have been submitted.

Answers have been… creative.

Transparency has remained in short supply.

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

(It always is, until it isn’t.)

🚨 A Fun Detour: Peterborough

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

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

Years later, officers decided:

> “Hmm… this might actually be unlawful.”

Police got involved.

People got nervous.

Paperwork suddenly mattered again.

Different town.

Same legal duties.

Which proves a vital lesson:

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

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

Myth: The Public was a waste of money.

Fact: Hundreds of thousands used it every year.

Myth: It failed.

Fact: It was politically closed while busy.

Myth: It didn’t fit West Bromwich.

Fact: It complemented New Square exactly as designed.

Myth: The council walked away.

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

Myth: “Move on.”

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

🧾 So What’s the Actual Issue?

This isn’t about nostalgia.

It isn’t about art snobbery.

It isn’t about being anti-college.

It’s about this:

A multi-million-pound public asset

Closed while operationally successful

Transferred under opaque terms

With unclear liabilities

Questionable upkeep

And no clean public account

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

🏁 Final Thought

The Public wasn’t a white elephant.

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

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

And in Sandwell, myths are cheaper than transparency.

Funny that.

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

The Sandwell Design Code: Community-Led… Apparently

The Sandwell Design Code: Community-Led… Apparently

Sandwell Council would like us to know — repeatedly — that its new Design Code is “community-led”, “rooted in local knowledge”, and shaped by extensive engagement.

Which is impressive.

Because a great many people in Sandwell had absolutely no idea it was happening.

Design Code Website Link

A consultation that happened… quietly

The Design Code engagement opened on 11 July 2025 and closed on 15 September 2025.

That period coincided with:

• summer holidays
• reduced community meetings
• lower volunteer availability
• and the time of year when councils are traditionally… less visible

This isn’t illegal.
But it does raise a basic question:

Who exactly was supposed to know this was happening?

There is little evidence of:

• borough-wide promotion
• direct contact with established community networks
• systematic outreach to Friends Groups, park groups, nature reserve volunteers, canal groups, or civic societies

Instead, awareness appears to have depended on:

• stumbling across the council website
• already following council social media
• or being “in the loop”

That is not broad engagement.
That is passive discovery.

Comments ≠ people (but they’re treated like they are)

The Council and its consultants frequently refer to:

• “hundreds of comments”
• “strong feedback”
• “clear themes from engagement”

What they do not clearly publish is:

• how many individual people took part
• how many distinct organisations contributed
• how representative participation was across the borough

This matters.

One person can submit multiple comments.
One pop-up event can generate dozens of comments.
One consultant spreadsheet can make very small numbers look very busy.

Comments are not participants.
And without publishing participant numbers, claims of “community-led” design are, at best, elastic.

Enter the Community Design Panel (no names, please)

We are told that a Community Design Panel is “central” to shaping the Design Code.

We are not told:

• who sits on it
• how many people applied
• how many were rejected
• how members were selected
• who approved it
• or who it reports to

We are simply asked to trust that it is:

“as representative of the borough as possible”

Which is convenient — because representation without transparency is just assertion.

This panel:

• meets repeatedly
• steers and reviews content
• influences a document that will carry planning weight

And yet operates, publicly at least, as a nameless advisory body.

That’s not empowerment.
That’s curation.

Friends Groups: deeply knowledgeable, strangely absent

Across Sandwell, Friends Groups and civic volunteers:

• maintain parks and green spaces
• manage nature reserves
• understand local safety, flooding, access, and maintenance issues
• deal daily with the consequences of poor design

They are the people who:

• know which paths flood
• where lighting fails
• where antisocial behaviour concentrates
• and which “nice design ideas” collapse in reality

And yet there is no evidence they were systematically engaged as a sector.

Instead, their place seems to have been taken by:

• pop-up conversations
• short surveys
• and a small, curated panel

That is not building on local knowledge.
That is skipping it.

A consultation designed for planners, not people

The current “Have Your Say” consultation asks residents to comment on:

• spatial typologies
• character area maps
• future development categories
• borough-wide design frameworks

Often with 150–200 characters to respond.

This assumes:

• planning literacy
• time to read technical reports
• comfort with jargon

It is not reasonable to expect:

• someone working full-time
• caring for family
• or unfamiliar with planning language

to digest professional-grade material just to give a meaningful response.

And this isn’t new.

We’ve seen the same thing with:

• the Local Plan
• the budget consultation
• green and open space surveys

Dense documents.
Limited explanation.
Then surprise when engagement is low.

At some point, the problem isn’t the public.

Consultants, cost, and déjà vu

External consultants have been appointed to lead this work.

Residents are entitled to ask:

• how they were procured
• what the contract value is
• what engagement outputs were required
• and how success is measured

This matters because Sandwell has form.

We’ve seen previous consultant-led engagement exercises — including green and open space surveys — commissioned at cost, delivered, and then quietly disappear from active policy use.

Against a backdrop of:

• budget cuts
• service pressures
• and public concern about waste

“Trust us, it’s best practice” is no longer enough.

A wider disconnect

What this Design Code process exposes is something bigger:

A disconnect between:

• council departments
• portfolio holders
• consultants
• and the lived experience of residents

People are told they are being listened to — while being presented with processes that are:

• hard to find
• hard to understand
• and unclear in outcome

That doesn’t build trust.
It drains it.

This could have been a good thing

A borough-wide Design Code could:

• improve housing quality
• protect green space
• make streets safer
• and give planners the confidence to refuse bad development

But only if it is:

• transparent
• representative
• accessible
• and enforceable

Right now, the danger is that we end up with:

a glossy document, full of “shoulds”, light on “musts”,
backed by claims of community support that cannot be clearly evidenced.

Final thought

This is not opposition to design quality.
It is opposition to performative consultation.

If Sandwell wants a Design Code the public will respect, it needs to stop telling people they were involved — and start showing them how.

Because “community-led” isn’t a slogan.

It’s a standard.

#Sandwell
#DesignCode
#CommunityNotConsultationTheatre
#LocalDemocracy
#PlanningTransparency
#FriendsGroups
#PublicConsultation
#SandwellPolitics

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Same Issues, Again and Again

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

1. Decisions First, Evidence Later

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

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

Yet time and again, the approach appears to be:

“Approve now, investigate properly later.”

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

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

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

What’s less clear is whether:

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

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

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

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

Transport statements frequently reassure, but:

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

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

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

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

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

Construction management plans. Operational mitigation. Future monitoring.

All fine in theory — but residents are left asking:

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

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

The Policy Gap That Keeps Appearing

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

Local Plan policies on:

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

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

This creates a growing disconnect between:

• policy intent, and
• decision reality.

And that disconnect appears more than once.

Why Residents Are Now Seeking Clarification

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

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

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

A Final Thought

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

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

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

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

More to follow.

Editor’s note

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

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