Fit for the Future: Good Conversation, Fine Words – Now Show Us the Follow-Up

 

Fit for the Future: Good Conversation, Fine Words – Now Show Us the Follow-Up

I recently attended a public workshop looking at the NHS “Fit for the Future” programme being developed across Sandwell, West Birmingham and Dudley.

I went along with a fairly healthy dose of scepticism.

Not because I am against change. Far from it.

But anyone who has spent any length of time dealing with public bodies will know that we are never short of strategies, visions, engagement exercises, colourful diagrams and phrases such as transformation, co-production, community first and working together.

The real test usually comes a few months later when you ask:

“So what actually happened?”

On this occasion, however, I have to say that I came away from the meeting feeling reasonably positive.

There were some good round-table conversations. People were encouraged to speak openly. There were different views and experiences around the tables, and I did get the impression that those leading the event were genuinely interested in hearing them.

That is a good start.

But it is only a start.

So what on earth is “Fit for the Future”?

Let us strip away the NHS management language.

In simple terms, the NHS wants to change how and where more of our healthcare is delivered over the next few years.

Nationally, the Government's 10-Year Health Plan is based around three big changes:

Hospital to community – providing more care closer to where people live rather than automatically sending everyone into hospital.

Analogue to digital – making greater use of the NHS App, online services, shared digital records, remote monitoring and technology.

Sickness to prevention – trying to identify risks and illness earlier instead of waiting until somebody becomes seriously unwell.

Locally, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust and The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust have built their own Fit for the Future strategy for 2026–2031 around those principles.

The model being presented is basically:

Healthy neighbourhoods – helping people stay healthier for longer.

Then:

Community First – more care and support in people's homes and local communities.

Then:

Planned Care Hubs – local centres providing appointments, tests, outpatient services and planned treatment.

With:

Two acute hospitals – Midland Metropolitan University Hospital and Russells Hall Hospital concentrating more on specialist, complex and emergency care.

Put simply, the ambition is that fewer people should have to go into a major hospital when their care could safely be provided somewhere closer to home.

On the face of it, there is plenty to like.

Who genuinely wants to travel miles, find somewhere to park, sit in a hospital waiting room and travel home again if the same quality of service could safely be provided locally?

Who would argue against diagnosing illness earlier?

Who would object to the NHS, councils, GPs, social care and voluntary organisations actually talking to one another instead of sending patients from pillar to post?

Not me.

But there is a very important “however”

This is not just a friendly little health and wellbeing project.

Fit for the Future could fundamentally change where and how many of us receive NHS care.

It potentially affects:

where outpatient appointments take place;

which services remain in hospitals;

what is provided through community hubs;

how much care takes place in people's homes;

how much responsibility is placed on patients and families;

how heavily the NHS relies on digital systems;

how NHS buildings are used;

where staff work;

and how money is divided between hospital and community services.

So this matters.

And it matters to everyone.

You may not think an NHS strategy has anything to do with you today.

You may think differently when your next outpatient appointment is moved.

Or when you are told that your follow-up will now be online.

Or when an elderly relative is discharged home earlier because care is supposedly available in the community.

Or when a service previously delivered locally is provided somewhere else.

That is exactly why people need to engage now, while these new ways of working are being shaped.

What have local people already said?

One of the handouts we were given drew together messages gathered through previous World Cafés, People Panels, Guided by You events and other community conversations.

And, to be honest, local people seem to be talking a great deal of common sense.

They have said:

People and relationships matter.

Start with what is strong in our communities.

Help people find support.

Support should feel local.

Work with communities, not for them.

Prevention matters.

And:

Places matter too.

That last one is particularly important.

Our health is not simply determined by what happens when we walk through the doors of a hospital.

Housing matters.

Poverty matters.

Employment matters.

Community safety matters.

Mental health matters.

Isolation and loneliness matter.

Green spaces matter.

Community venues matter.

Having somewhere safe to walk, meet people and feel connected matters.

All of these things contribute to whether people remain healthy or eventually arrive at the NHS door needing treatment.

So I welcome the fact that the conversation is beginning to look beyond hospitals.

“Work with communities, not for them”

For me, that is probably the most important phrase in all of the material we were given.

Work with communities, not for them.

Excellent.

Now let us see it happen.

Because we have all seen engagement exercises before.

People give up their time.

They attend meetings.

They share often very personal experiences.

They fill in forms.

They write on Post-it notes.

They put coloured dots on boards.

Everyone has a cup of tea.

A report is produced.

Then...

Silence.

Until somebody launches another consultation asking many of the same questions twelve months later.

That cannot happen here.

There has already been considerable engagement through World Cafés, People Panels, community conversations and now Fit for the Future workshops.

At some point, we need to move from:

“We are listening.”

to:

“This is what you told us and this is what changed because of it.”

What I would like to see next

For me, the follow-up should be incredibly simple.

Every workshop should eventually produce something along the lines of:

What You Said

What We Heard

What We Are Going To Do

Who Is Responsible

When It Will Happen

What Eventually Happened

And where something cannot be done?

Tell us.

Where an idea is unrealistic?

Explain why.

Where something needs more investigation?

Tell us who is looking at it and when we will hear back.

People are adults.

We do not expect every suggestion made around a table to suddenly become NHS policy.

But we should expect to know that it was considered.

That is the difference between meaningful engagement and simply collecting comments.

Community First must mean something

There is one area where I remain particularly watchful.

The phrase “Community First” sounds excellent.

But it needs investment behind it.

Moving services out of hospital only works if the services waiting for people in the community are actually there.

That means staff.

Buildings.

Equipment.

Transport.

Social care.

District nursing.

GP capacity.

Mental health support.

Voluntary and community organisations.

And proper funding.

Otherwise, there is a danger that:

“Care closer to home”

gradually becomes:

“Care removed from hospital and good luck when you get home.”

That is not transformation.

That is cost shifting.

So, while I support the principle of more care being delivered locally, I will continue to ask one very simple question:

Will the community services be properly funded, staffed and operating before hospital services are reduced or moved?

That is where the detail matters.

Digital must not mean digital only

The same applies to the move from analogue to digital.

Technology can make accessing healthcare much easier for millions of people.

Wonderful.

Use it.

But there must always be a proper alternative for those who cannot.

Not everybody has a smartphone.

Not everyone understands apps.

Not everybody can navigate online forms.

Some people have disabilities.

Some have learning difficulties.

Some struggle with literacy.

Some simply want to speak to another human being.

Progress should make healthcare more accessible, not create a new digital obstacle course.

So, was the meeting worthwhile?

Yes.

I think it was.

There were some very good discussions and some interesting ideas.

I also met people around the tables who clearly care deeply about improving health and wellbeing across our communities.

I came away more encouraged than perhaps I expected to.

And I am happy to say that.

We should criticise when things go wrong, but we should equally acknowledge when something feels constructive.

The NHS faces enormous challenges.

Demand continues to grow.

People are living longer with increasingly complex health conditions.

Waiting lists remain a concern.

Staff are under pressure.

Money is tight.

Doing exactly what we have always done probably is not an option.

Change is coming.

The important question is whether communities help shape that change—or simply have it done to them.

Now comes the real test

The presentations have been delivered.

The round-table conversations have taken place.

People have spoken.

People have listened.

Now comes the important bit.

What happens next?

I want to see the feedback.

I want to see the action list.

I want to see who is responsible.

I want to see timescales.

And I want the NHS to come back to the same communities and tell us what happened.

Because Fit for the Future will not ultimately be judged by the quality of its PowerPoint slides, its logos or how many engagement events were held.

It will be judged by something much simpler.

Can people get the care they need?

Can they get it safely?

Can they get it locally where appropriate?

Can they access it fairly?

Are vulnerable people protected?

And did the people who use our NHS genuinely have a voice in shaping it?

I left the meeting feeling positive.

But I will also be watching what comes next.

Because listening is the easy bit.

Being seen to listen is even easier.

The real proof will be showing us that our voices actually made a difference.

And perhaps the NHS should keep one of its own messages firmly in mind as Fit for the Future moves forward:

Work with communities. Not for them.

Now let's see it happen.

#FitForTheFuture #NHS #SWBNHS #Sandwell #WestBirmingham #Dudley #CommunityFirst #PatientVoice #CommunityEngagement #PublicHealth #HealthInequalities #NHS10YearPlan #WorkWithCommunities #CareCloserToHome

Friends Groups, Volunteering and Green Spaces in Sandwell Market Stalls, Missing Actions and Another Council "Ongoing Review" – But What Has Actually Changed?

 

Friends Groups, Volunteering and Green Spaces in Sandwell

Market Stalls, Missing Actions and Another Council "Ongoing Review" – But What Has Actually Changed?

I went along to Sandwell Council's latest Friends Groups and Allotment Groups "market-style" event at West Smethwick Park Pavilion on 17 July.

And, to be honest, if it had been a real market, I might have turned around and gone somewhere else to spend my money.

Now, before anyone starts sharpening their corporate pencils, I arrived at around midday because I had another appointment earlier. So I cannot comment on what happened during the first hour.

But when I arrived, the room certainly wasn't what I'd call bustling.

There were quite a few empty tables.

I couldn't see Waste Management or Recycling.

I couldn't see Litter Watch.

I couldn't see any Environmental Protection Officers.

The poor representative from SCVO looked rather lonely when I arrived. Frankly, signing people up to the SCVO bulletin might have been a more productive use of everyone's time.

I saw no obvious senior officers or Director-level management.

I saw two councillors, both from the opposition.

No Reform Cabinet Members that I could see.

No Council Leader.

And perhaps most surprisingly, I didn't see Volunteer Development Manager Andrew Walker, despite Andrew promoting the event and saying how much he was looking forward to welcoming us all.

Perhaps he was there earlier. Perhaps he arrived later. I'm quite happy to be corrected.

But during the time I was there, the person apparently overseeing this great "ongoing review" of Friends Groups engagement wasn't visible.

Not exactly ideal.

Some Positives – Because There Were Some

Let's be fair.

I had a very useful conversation with Sunish Patel, Greenspace Projects Lead Officer.

I've known Sunish for years and, to his credit, he is one of those officers who will actually engage with you. Sometimes I suspect his hands are tied by resources, structures or decisions made elsewhere, but at least you can have a proper conversation.

I also had an encouraging chat with Amy Robinson, Greenspaces Facilities Manager.

My understanding is that the Council/Friends Groups ways-of-working agreement is being reviewed.

Good.

It needs reviewing.

But—and it's quite a big but—Friends Groups need to be involved in reviewing it.

Please don't disappear into an office, write another document full of "collaboration", "impactful engagement" and "stakeholder journeys", then present it to us as a fait accompli.

Talk to us.

Some of us have been doing this for rather a long time.

I was also introduced to Neighbourhood Officer Joanne Peasley and managed a friendly dig at John Satchwell about semi mature trees. 

mature trees.

So it wasn't entirely wasted.

But for an event supposedly designed to bring Friends Groups together with Council departments and partners, there weren't exactly hundreds of avenues open for meaningful engagement.

Apparently the Previous Event Was a "Success"

This is where we need to stop kidding ourselves.

The Council has repeatedly described the January market-style event as a success.

Why?

Because people attended.

Because people talked to each other.

Because there was "meaningful participation".

Because evaluation sheets were positive.

Lovely.

But here's the problem.

A successful event and a successful review of Friends Groups governance are two completely different things.

I can go to a wedding, eat three sausage rolls, dance badly and fill in a form saying I had a lovely evening.

That doesn't mean the marriage will work.

If these market-style events are going to continue, then let's have some proper evaluation.

What were the objectives?

How many recognised Friends Groups attended?

How many officers and organisations were invited?

How many actually turned up?

How many actions came out of the day?

Who owns them?

What are the deadlines?

How many have been completed?

How many are still outstanding six months later?

And most importantly:

What actually changed because the event happened?

That's how you measure success.

If we need KPIs, let's have KPIs.

Response times.

Actions completed.

Site visits delivered.

Issues resolved.

Stakeholder satisfaction.

Promises kept.

Because without proper evaluation, scrutiny, action planning and measurable outcomes, an engagement event can become little more than a way of saying:

"Look everyone, we engaged."

Box ticked.

Next.

Whatever Happened to the January Actions?

Here's a rather good example of the problem.

After the January event, I raised the fact that we were still waiting for promised actions, contacts and site visits.

The response?

Could I send the list again so it could be discussed with colleagues?

Sorry?

If commitments are made at a Council-organised engagement event, why is the volunteer being asked months later to reconstruct the Council's own action list?

Where are the notes?

Where is the action log?

Who was assigned each action?

Who followed it up?

This is exactly the problem we've already identified with missing minutes and inconsistent records from previous Friends Groups meetings.

Volunteers should not have to become Sandwell Council's unofficial filing department.

The Great "Ongoing Review"

We keep hearing that these events form part of an "ongoing review" of how the Council works with Friends Groups.

Fine.

So what exactly is being reviewed?

Who owns the review?

Where are the terms of reference?

Where is the January survey analysis?

What did people say?

What recommendations came out of it?

Where is the action plan?

What's changed?

When does the review finish?

Who signs it off?

And where do Friends Groups get to see and comment on the outcome?

We also still have the existing Friends Groups Partnership or ways-of-working Agreement.

What's happening to that?

Is it still in force?

Is it being rewritten?

Is it being replaced?

Because previous consultations, agreements and years of voluntary input should not mysteriously evaporate every time somebody moves office or gets a new job title.

Friends Groups, Allotments and Everyone Else

The second event was wider than the first.

Friends Groups.

Allotment groups.

Community organisations.

Council departments.

Potentially useful.

I've got no problem with that.

But let's be clear.

A networking event for lots of community organisations is not automatically the same thing as a formal review of how the Council works with constituted Friends Groups.

Friends Groups have particular relationships with individual parks, nature reserves and green spaces.

They hold local knowledge.

They often have constitutions.

They have histories with those sites.

They should not simply become another table in a room full of "community stakeholders".

Both things can exist.

But don't confuse them.

Green Space Ambassadors – Why?

Then we have the Green Space Ambassador initiative.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

What exactly is it?

What gap is it filling?

How does it relate to Friends Groups?

How does it relate to Litter Watch?

Who's managing it?

What's it costing?

What are its objectives?

Where is it properly explained?

Because it currently looks suspiciously like another layer being added before we've fixed the layers we've already got.

We've got constituted Friends Groups.

We've got volunteers.

We've got Litter Watch.

We've got other established community organisations.

Perhaps the priority should be to properly engage with and support them first.

Where informal "Friends of" Facebook groups exist—some of them set up or promoted by councillors—help them develop constitutions and proper structures if they want a formal relationship with the Council.

Then look at the gaps.

Which parks don't have Friends Groups?

Which reserves need them?

Help local people establish them.

Build a strong borough-wide network.

There are people like Ian Carroll, myself and many others with years of experience around Sandwell's pools, waterways, wildfowl, parks and reserves.

Others bring expertise in heritage, horticulture, litter, events and biodiversity.

Use that knowledge.

Don't reinvent it with another shiny title.

Litter Watch – Support Them, Don't Duplicate Them

And while we're talking volunteers, let's mention Litter Watch.

They've got a tremendous volunteer base.

They've been doing this stuff for years.

Yet we increasingly seem to get Council initiatives that stray into territory Litter Watch has already occupied for ages.

Maybe it's time to properly review that relationship.

What support are they getting from Sandwell Council?

From Serco?

From senior management?

What resources do they need?

If you've already got a successful community partnership, here's a revolutionary idea:

Support it.

Resource it.

Celebrate it.

Don't create another initiative doing half the same job.

Maybe We Need Proper Quarterly Meetings

If these market-style events are going to continue, the format needs looking at.

Perhaps a quarterly borough-wide meeting at the Council House would work better.

Maybe 3pm or 3.30pm until around 6.30pm, giving people with daytime commitments a chance to attend.

Parking at West Smethwick Park isn't always easy and accessibility needs proper consideration too. The access arrangements around the pavilion certainly didn't seem ideal for anyone with mobility difficulties.

But let's be absolutely clear.

Quarterly meetings must never replace officers going out to sites.

You cannot understand Sheepwash Nature Reserve entirely from a meeting room.

You cannot understand a damaged gate, a polluted pool, an access problem or an off-road bike route from a PowerPoint presentation.

Sometimes officers need to put their boots on and come and look.

Strategic meetings and site visits.

We need both.

Who Actually Does What?

Communication is still a mess.

People move.

Teams change.

Services restructure.

Responsibilities shuffle around.

Now we're getting Ward Co-ordinators added to the mix.

So can we please have an up-to-date structure?

Who does what?

Who deals with whom?

Who owns an issue when it crosses three departments?

Who escalates it?

Who reports back?

A new Friends Groups email address might help.

But there's little point having a shiny inbox if nobody behind it knows who owns the problem.

And Where Do Friends Groups Fit Into Wider Consultation?

This is another big question.

We've recently been looking at the Design Code consultation.

Where were Friends Groups?

Parks.

Open spaces.

Landscape.

Biodiversity.

Public realm.

Trees.

Green infrastructure.

Surely established Friends Groups have something useful to say about those things?

Yet we seem to find out about consultations almost by accident.

The same applies to tree planting, biodiversity, parks strategies, waterbody management and other environmental initiatives.

The Council needs a proper mechanism that says:

"This consultation affects parks and green spaces—have we contacted the relevant Friends Groups?"

It shouldn't be difficult.

Now Let's Talk About Byelaws – Because This Cannot Keep Being Kicked Down the Road

This is where I get particularly frustrated.

Sandwell urgently needs robust, clear, legally sound, consistent and enforceable borough-wide byelaws covering its parks, nature reserves, waterbodies and green spaces.

Not vague guidance.

Not another webpage.

Not "best practice" that nobody can enforce.

Proper byelaws.

With legal force.

Clearly communicated.

Consistently applied.

And properly enforced.

Friends Groups and wildlife campaigners have been asking for this for years.

The legal process might not be simple.

Fine.

Do it properly.

But don't use complexity as an excuse to keep doing nothing.

Everyone should know what is permitted, what is prohibited, who enforces it and what happens when the rules are broken.

Residents.

Dog owners.

Anglers.

Rangers.

EPOs.

Police.

Friends Groups.

Everyone.

And the Angling Policy?

Same problem.

We've had years of discussion and consultation.

Friends Groups and wildlife advocates put time into draft policies.

Then somehow we've ended up with "best practice guidance".

That's not good enough.

Sandwell needs a proper angling policy.

Clear.

Properly consulted upon.

Properly adopted.

Enforceable.

It needs to say where fishing is allowed and where it isn't.

What methods are permitted.

What equipment is allowed.

What happens with unattended rods.

Night fishing.

Traps.

Licences.

Permits.

Day tickets.

Charges.

Discarded tackle.

Wildlife protection.

Enforcement.

The lot.

If the old draft wasn't right, improve it.

If parts were too complicated, explain why.

But don't throw years of volunteer work in a drawer and replace it with something that looks like it was written during a coffee break.

Responsible anglers benefit from clear rules too.

This is not anti-angling.

It's anti-chaos.

Wildlife Doesn't Care About Corporate Buzzwords

And this is why all of this matters.

Over just one recent weekend, volunteers and wildlife campaigners have reported swans attacked by dogs.

One attack was fatal.

Wildfowl have reportedly been caught in traps.

Birds have become tangled in discarded fishing debris.

Hooks and lures have been found caught in birds' beaks and bodies.

We've had deliberate fires being started.

ASB.

Off-road bikes.

The usual catalogue of problems.

Every individual incident needs to be properly reported and investigated.

But collectively they make one thing obvious.

We need proper rules and proper enforcement.

Officers have to take ownership of this.

You cannot hand out animal welfare awards on one side of the building while wildlife campaigners on the other side are trying to work out who on earth is responsible for acting when animals are being harmed.

Rangers and EPOs – What Are They Actually There to Do?

We also need a proper review of Rangers and Environmental Protection Officers.

What powers do they have?

Who enforces the byelaws?

Who tackles illegal fishing?

Who deals with traps?

Who handles wildlife incidents?

Who deals with deliberate fires?

Off-road bikes?

Persistent ASB?

When do the Police get involved?

How are repeat incidents recorded?

How is intelligence shared?

Without clear responsibilities, the best policy in the world will gather dust.

And without proper policy and byelaws, enforcement officers are being asked to work with one hand tied behind their backs.

Whatever Happened to the Wildlife Crime Officer?

Another mystery.

Who is Sandwell's Police Wildlife Crime Officer?

How do we contact them?

How do Friends Groups engage?

How does intelligence move between West Midlands Police and Sandwell Council?

Do joint operations happen?

How do we spot patterns across several parks?

Wildlife campaigners shouldn't need to keep a personal address book of useful officers just to get an incident taken seriously.

There should be a proper route.

Here's My Radical Proposal: Talk to the People Who Know the Places

Some Council officers need to understand something.

Some Friends Groups and volunteers genuinely know these places very well.

Sometimes better than the officer who's just inherited responsibility for them.

That's not an insult.

It's inevitable.

If you've spent twenty years watching a pool, a reserve or a particular wildlife population, you acquire knowledge.

Professional expertise matters.

Local knowledge matters too.

Put them together.

That's partnership.

So What Should Happen?

Here's my suggestion.

No new catchy slogan required.

Review the Friends Groups ways-of-working Agreement properly—with Friends Groups.

Hold proper quarterly borough-wide meetings.

Keep proper minutes.

Keep action logs.

Name the officer responsible.

Set deadlines.

Report progress.

Continue regular site visits.

Publish an up-to-date contact and management structure.

Set proper escalation routes.

Introduce sensible KPIs.

Publish what came out of the January event and survey.

Evaluate future events honestly.

Explain the Green Space Ambassador scheme and prove it's needed.

Strengthen Litter Watch instead of duplicating it.

Help informal Friends Groups become constituted.

Support new groups where there are gaps.

Automatically include Friends Groups in relevant consultations.

And, urgently:

Sort out the byelaws.

Sort out the angling policy.

Sort out who enforces what.

Sort out Rangers and EPO roles.

Sort out wildlife crime reporting.

It's not rocket science.

From "We Engaged" to "We Did Something"

There are good officers at Sandwell Council.

There are dedicated volunteers.

There are people who care enormously about our parks, reserves and wildlife.

Use them.

Market-style events might have a place.

But they are not governance.

They are not site visits.

They are not consultation.

They are not enforcement.

And they are not action.

After two market-style events and more than six months of this mysterious "ongoing review", I think it's reasonable to ask three very simple questions:

What changed?

What improved?

What got done?

And perhaps one more:

Are Sandwell's parks, nature reserves, green spaces and wildlife any better protected because of it?

At the moment, I'm not convinced we have good enough answers.

And that, surely, is the whole point.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #FriendsGroups #GreenSpaces #Parks #NatureReserves #Volunteering #CommunityVolunteers #CommunityEngagement #WildlifeWelfare #WildlifeProtection #AnimalWelfare #AnglingPolicy #CouncilByelaws #EnvironmentalProtection #EnvironmentalGovernance #LitterWatch #GreenSpaceAmbassadors #SandwellParks #SandwellWildlife #Accountability #LocalGovernment #CouncilScrutiny #PublicAccountability #CommunityVoice #PartnershipWorking #WestMidlands

 

Reform's First Real Test... and Sandwell Deserved Better

"The true test of leadership isn't what you say before you're elected... it's what you do once you are."

Yesterday, Sandwell Council's new Reform administration faced its first real test.

Not an election campaign.

Not a press release.

Not a Facebook video.

A real Cabinet meeting where the public could finally see whether Reform intended to govern differently from those they had spent months criticising.

I genuinely wanted them to succeed.

In fact, I still do.

Because if Reform succeeds in changing the culture of Sandwell Council, then Sandwell residents benefit.

But if yesterday is anything to go by, the leadership is already in danger of faltering.

Not because of the decisions they made.

Because of how they made them.

Before Anyone Starts...

Let's be absolutely clear.

This isn't written because I want Reform to fail.

Far from it.

I was as frustrated as many others with years of poor governance, weak scrutiny and a culture that too often appeared to rubber-stamp officer recommendations.

Reform campaigned hard on exactly those issues.

We were told:

• Sandwell was broken.

• There wasn't enough scrutiny.

• Officers had too much influence.

• Decisions weren't challenged.

• The culture had to change.

Many residents believed that promise.

Yesterday...

I struggled to see the change.

710 Pages. Around One Hour. Fifteen Major Decisions.

Let's just stop and think about this.

Cabinet Members were asked to consider approximately 710 pages of reports.

Not seventy.

Seven hundred and ten.

Those reports included:

• The Local Government Association Corporate Peer Challenge Action Plan.

• The Annual Corporate Performance Report.

• The Council's financial outturn.

• Housing maintenance contracts.

• Housing policies.

• Private rented housing enforcement.

• Anti-Social Behaviour.

• The Regeneration Pipeline.

• Pride in Place.

• Best Start in Life.

• SEND.

• Schools Capital Programme.

• Major procurement decisions.

• An urgent Leader's decision.

Collectively these reports involve decisions affecting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money and services relied upon by every resident in Sandwell.

The meeting itself lasted around one hour.

Think about that.

How can anyone seriously argue that fifteen major reports and 710 pages received the level of public scrutiny they deserved?

Democracy isn't simply about making decisions.

It's about allowing residents to see those decisions being properly tested.

Yesterday, that simply wasn't evident.

Don't Take My Word For It

One thing I always encourage is that people look at the evidence themselves.

Don't simply accept my opinion.

Don't simply accept Reform's.

Don't simply accept Labour's.

Watch the meeting yourself.

The Cabinet meeting is available to view in the webcast archive here:

Sandwell Cabinet Meeting Webcast – 15 July 2026

As you watch, ask yourself:

• Did 710 pages receive proper scrutiny?

• Were awkward questions asked?

• Did Cabinet Members visibly challenge officers?

• Did debate change any recommendations?

• Does this look like the fresh start Sandwell voted for?

You may reach a different conclusion than I have.

That's democracy.

The Biggest Story Isn't What Cabinet Approved

The biggest story is what appeared to happen before those approvals.

The Council's own reports contain numerous red flags.

The Annual Performance Report still records significant underperformance across important services.

Housing continues to struggle.

Repairs remain a concern.

Complaints remain a concern.

Customer Services remain under pressure.

SEND continues to face major challenges.

The Local Government Association Peer Challenge Action Plan itself acknowledges that substantial improvement work remains.

The Regeneration Pipeline expands Pride in Place while increasing delegated authority and governance arrangements.

Housing maintenance contracts involving millions of pounds were approved.

The Schools Capital Programme committed further significant investment.

The Financial Outturn highlighted continuing budgetary pressures.

These are precisely the sort of reports that deserve detailed questioning.

Instead...

Too much appeared simply to move through.

Where Was the Reform We Were Promised?

Throughout the election campaign Reform repeatedly told us:

Sandwell was broken.

Labour nodded reports through.

Officers had become too powerful.

There wasn't enough challenge.

Yesterday, I kept asking myself one question.

What actually looked different?

Changing political control is one thing.

Changing political culture is something entirely different.

Yesterday looked worryingly familiar.

Who Was Leading?

One thing became increasingly noticeable.

Every Cabinet Member appeared to have their corresponding senior officer sitting immediately beside them.

Now let's be fair.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with officers advising elected Members.

That's exactly what good officers are employed to do.

But there is a very important distinction between:

Supporting decision-makers

and

Appearing to direct decision-makers.

The public should leave believing:

"The councillors challenged the officers."

Not wondering:

"Did the officers quietly steer the councillors?"

Perception matters.

Yesterday, that perception wasn't helped.

An Uncomfortable Atmosphere

The atmosphere before and during the meeting also raised concerns.

Several non-Cabinet councillors who would historically have observed proceedings from within the chamber found themselves being asked to move.

Councillor Jeffcoat refused, making the entirely reasonable point that he had every right to remain there representing his residents.

Other councillors attempted to attract the Chair's attention.

From where I was sitting, those attempts simply went unacknowledged.

Whether the Chair intended to allow them to contribute or not is almost beside the point.

Good chairmanship acknowledges people.

Good leadership explains decisions.

Ignoring fellow elected councillors is poor political management.

Courtesy costs nothing.

Respect costs nothing.

Comments From the Opposition

After the meeting, Labour Councillor Luke Davies posted his own observations.

Like all political commentary, readers should treat them as his own views.

However, some of the issues he raises deserve answers rather than dismissal.

He questioned the presence of additional security.

He questioned changes to where opposition councillors could sit.

He stated that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Shadow Cabinet were permitted to ask questions, despite what he described as decades of previous practice.

He also made an observation that particularly caught my attention.

He wrote:

"Given that each Cabinet member had their officer sat next to them to hand them their speeches rather than being behind them and not interfering as is the usual practice, I do wonder how many of the Cabinet had actually read the agenda pack."

I cannot answer that question.

Nor would I accuse any councillor of failing to read their papers.

But I think residents are perfectly entitled to ask:

How were Cabinet Members able to satisfy themselves that 710 pages of highly technical reports had received the level of personal scrutiny they deserved before decisions affecting millions of pounds were approved?

That's a fair question.

Holiday Vouchers – The Full Story

One exchange concerned holiday food vouchers.

The impression given during the meeting was that the funding had effectively disappeared.

The Cabinet report itself paints a fuller picture.

The previous Household Support Fund has indeed ended.

However, it has been replaced by the Government's Crisis and Resilience Fund.

The Council considered continuing holiday vouchers under the new funding arrangements.

It chose not to.

That is a policy decision.

Residents deserve to understand that distinction.

The Nolan Principles

Ironically, the meeting opened with reference to the Nolan Principles.

Leadership.

Integrity.

Objectivity.

Accountability.

Openness.

Honesty.

Selflessness.

Excellent.

But quoting them isn't enough.

They must be demonstrated.

Yesterday, I found myself asking whether openness and accountability were actually being strengthened.

Or quietly reduced.

One Small Thing... That Said Quite a Lot

One moment summed things up for me.

Cabinet approved the minutes of a previous meeting as a true and accurate record.

Procedurally, that is entirely normal.

The minutes record what happened.

They are not an endorsement of the decisions.

However, politically this felt like another missed opportunity.

This Cabinet had campaigned on the claim that Sandwell had been governed badly.

None of the current Cabinet Members had even been serving in those Cabinet roles when those minutes were created.

This was an opportunity to say:

"We've looked at where Sandwell has been."

"We've reflected on previous decisions."

"We'll be doing things differently."

Instead...

It simply felt like the next meeting in a long-running series.

Not the beginning of a new chapter.

The Biggest Red Flags

Several themes emerged repeatedly.

🚩 Performance — Too many indicators remain stubbornly in the red.

🚩 Delegated Authority — Cabinet approves principles while officers increasingly determine delivery.

🚩 Pride in Place — A programme intended to be community-led risks becoming Council-led unless governance and transparency improve.

🚩 Housing — Significant contracts approved while major service pressures continue.

🚩 Information Overload — 710 pages make meaningful scrutiny almost impossible.

🚩 Meeting Culture — The atmosphere felt controlled rather than open.

🚩 Visible Challenge — Too little evidence that Cabinet was robustly testing officer recommendations in public.

Full Council Must Now Do Its Job

I sincerely hope every one of yesterday's reports receives detailed scrutiny at Full Council.

Cabinet should never be the end of democratic accountability.

It should be the beginning.

Every councillor, regardless of party, should now read these reports, ask difficult questions and hold the Cabinet to account.

Residents deserve nothing less.

Reform Still Has Time

This is one meeting.

Not a final judgement.

Not a political obituary.

There is still time to put this right.

But yesterday should be a warning.

Reform wasn't elected simply to manage the old system.

It was elected to reform it.

That means:

Smaller agenda packs.

More debate.

More challenge.

More scrutiny.

More openness.

Greater respect for every elected councillor.

Cabinet Members visibly leading.

Officers visibly advising.

That's the difference people voted for.

One Final Thought

Yesterday wasn't the Reform Cabinet I hoped to see.

It wasn't the bold, questioning, fearless administration many residents believed they were electing.

Instead, it reminded me—uncomfortably—of a period in Sandwell's history that many hoped had been left behind.

Not because the political colours were the same.

They weren't.

But because the culture felt familiar.

It had echoes of the old days under Darren Cooper, when many residents believed Cabinet meetings had become exercises in confirming decisions rather than testing them.

That is not an accusation that history has repeated itself.

It is a warning that the perception of history repeating itself is already beginning to emerge.

Perception matters.

Public confidence matters.

And if Reform genuinely wants to restore trust in Sandwell Council, it needs to show—not just say—that it governs differently.

I still want Reform to succeed.

I still hope they will.

But hope alone isn't enough.

Yesterday was their first real test.

For me, they didn't fail.

But they certainly didn't pass with the distinction that many residents were expecting.

Sandwell deserves better.

And Reform still has every opportunity to prove that better is exactly what it intends to deliver.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #Cabinet #Democracy #Scrutiny #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #Housing #SEND #PrideInPlace #CouncilFinance #CommunityVoice #LocalPolitics

Sandwell Petitions Committee: Democracy, But With a Rubber Stamp and a Waiting Room

Sandwell Petitions Committee: Democracy, But With a Rubber Stamp and a Waiting Room

There is another meeting of Sandwell Council’s Cabinet Petitions Committee on Wednesday 15 July 2026 at 6pm.

Meeting papers here:
https://sandwell.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=174&MId=7437&Ver=4

Now, in theory, a petitions committee sounds like a wonderful thing.

Residents get ignored through the usual channels, so they gather signatures, submit a petition, turn up at the Council House, and the mighty machinery of local democracy springs into action.

Lovely.

Except this is Sandwell.

So the machinery does not so much “spring into action” as cough, wheeze, ask for an officer update, place the matter into a future review, and then stamp something CLOSED before anyone has seen a spade, paintbrush, lamp column, barrier, camera, drain rod or actual solution.

Democracy with a rubber stamp.

Public engagement with a filing cabinet.

The Council says petitions are one of the ways residents can influence decision-making. Which is nice. Very warm. Very glossy brochure. Very “your voice matters” — terms and conditions apply, naturally.

But the papers for this meeting show the same old pattern.

Residents raise basic issues.

The Council turns them into process.

New administration, same conveyor belt?

This is now under the 2026/27 Reform administration.

The Committee membership has changed. Councillor Bob Jones is Chair and Cabinet Member for Environment and Enforcement. Ray Nock is Council Leader and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Growth. Other Cabinet members sit across finance, housing, customer services, children, adults, health, education and skills.

So this is no longer something the new administration can simply blame on the old lot.

Yes, the system has been inherited.

Yes, the culture was built long before May.

But once you sit in the chair, it becomes your chair.

And this Committee is a perfect opportunity for Reform to prove whether they are going to change Sandwell’s old way of working — or simply change the names on the nameplates while the same old municipal mincer keeps chewing up residents’ concerns.

The March meeting lasted 17 minutes

Let us start with something that jumped out immediately.

The minutes of the last Cabinet Petitions Committee show the meeting on 4 March 2026 started at 6.01pm and ended at 6.18pm.

Seventeen minutes.

That meeting covered matters including a waterlogged alleyway, Seymour Road traffic concerns, Church Road bins and street scene issues, Oldbury safety concerns following a sexual and physical attack, and Barker Street Car Park anti-social behaviour.

Seventeen minutes.

I have had longer waits for a kettle to boil while arguing with a teabag.

This is supposed to be a democratic committee dealing with residents who have gone to the effort of raising formal petitions. These are not people asking whether the Council House biscuits should be custard creams or bourbons. They are raising road safety, lighting, anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, bins, pavements, drains and public safety.

If a petitions committee can process all that in 17 minutes, either Sandwell has discovered the secret of hyper-efficient local government — unlikely — or scrutiny is about as deep as a puddle in August.

Alma Avenue and Moat Road — yellow lines, but wait for the review

The first new petition is from 12 residents from Alma Avenue and Moat Road, asking for double yellow lines on Alma Avenue in Tipton.

The Council response is that a proposal for double yellow lines will be made for the junction of Alma Avenue and Moat Road in the next Tipton review. The Legal Order will be advertised. Objections can be made. If objections are received, they go to a future Decision Making Session. The next Tipton review is due to begin in September 2026.

Now, some of this is normal highways process. Traffic Regulation Orders do not happen by magic. There has to be advertising, consultation and legal process.

But residents need more than “wait for the review”.

They need to know what the actual problem is, whether officers have inspected the junction, whether visibility is poor, whether emergency access is affected, whether school traffic is involved, and when lines could realistically be painted if approved.

Because “September review” in Sandwell can sometimes mean “see you in the next geological period”.

West Park Road — apparently nobody has been hurt enough yet

The second new petition is from 31 residents around West Park Road, Smethwick, asking for traffic calming.

The Council response is basically this: road safety funding is prioritised where the most benefit can be achieved in reducing casualties. West Park Road has not been identified for funding this year because there have been no recorded collisions resulting in casualties in the last three years.

There may be an opportunity to seek Community Concern Site Project funding when tranche 2 becomes available towards the end of 2026.

In plain English:

Nobody has been officially injured recently enough, so please wait.

Now, collision data matters. Public money has to be prioritised. Nobody sensible disputes that.

But road safety should not only be reactive. Residents do not usually petition because they are bored and fancy a clipboard-based hobby. They petition because they see speeding, near misses, dangerous driving, pavement parking, school route risks, elderly residents struggling, children crossing, or drivers treating residential roads like a racetrack.

Are residents supposed to wait until somebody is knocked over before the spreadsheet lights up?

That is not prevention. That is municipal fortune-telling with casualties.

At the very least, the Council should be looking at lower-cost measures: speed monitoring, signage, road markings, police enforcement, community speed watch, ward-level options, or temporary interventions.

Instead, residents get the familiar Sandwell answer: not this year, maybe later, funding fairy permitting.

Old Warley and Perryfields — safety fears meet the ownership shuffle

The Old Warley petition remains one of the most serious.

Residents asked for street lighting and CCTV after a sexual and physical attack on a woman. They reported feeling unsafe. They asked for lighting in the alleyway between Perryfields Academy and Perryfields Primary School, and CCTV at Tame Road.

The Council installed a deployable CCTV camera. Later, it said no incidents had been detected and no incidents had been reported to the Council. The lighting was costed at around £31,299.

Then comes the classic Sandwell ownership shuffle.

Perryfields Academy holds the lease. The Council does not receive funding for maintenance of the school site. Funding rules mean the Council cannot simply use certain school condition money on an academy site. Therefore, the Academy Trust is apparently central to any decision.

Fine. That may be technically correct.

But residents are not asking for a bedtime story about leasehold arrangements and grant conditions.

They are asking to feel safe.

So the question should be simple:

Who is leading the solution?

Has Sandwell Council sat down with Perryfields Academy Trust, West Midlands Police, ward councillors, community safety officers and the relevant Cabinet Member?

Is there an action plan?

Is there a named lead?

Is there a timetable?

Or are residents just being told, in very official language, that their safety concerns are stuck somewhere between an academy lease, a funding rule and a committee update?

Because “the camera saw nothing” does not mean the community feels safe.

And “not our land” is not leadership.

Barker Street Car Park — barriers are tricky, so what is Plan B?

Residents around Barker Street Car Park raised concerns about anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, noise, disorder and feeling unsafe.

They asked for the car park to be closed at night, or alternatively transferred to a community group to manage access.

Officers met residents. Residents asked about raised traffic barriers. The Council says barriers may be challenging due to the size and limitations of the carriageway.

And now we await another update.

This is where the Council needs to stop acting as if one difficult option ends the conversation.

If barriers are difficult, what else has been considered?

Lighting? CCTV? Patrols? Waste enforcement? Fly-tipping cameras? Police tasking? Public Space Protection Order powers? Timed restrictions? Better signage? Redesign? Community stewardship? Asset transfer feasibility?

Residents should not be left with “barriers are challenging” as though Moses has come down from the mountain with it carved into stone.

If there is anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping, then the Council should produce a proper options paper.

Not a shrug in a suit.

Oval Road, Tipton — the muddy alleyway saga

Then there is Oval Road, Tipton.

Residents reported that the alleyway between numbers 37 and 39 had become heavily waterlogged and muddy, creating hazardous conditions for residents and visitors.

At the March meeting, highways officers agreed to investigate and consider using “plainings” to help alleviate the problem. The July report says an update with further information and potential solutions will be provided at the meeting.

Again: why is this not in the public report?

This is not the Manhattan Project.

It is a muddy alleyway.

Who owns it?
Who maintains it?
Is it drainage?
Is it surfacing?
Is it run-off from adjacent land?
Are plainings suitable?
What will it cost?
When will it be done?

Residents should not need to take out a season ticket for committee updates just to find out whether an alleyway can be made safe.

Church Road — “ONLY material thing of substance”

Now we must return to the now infamous Church Road wording.

The papers repeat the line:

“ONLY material thing of substance is one-way street conversion for Church street.”

This is in relation to a petition where residents raised weekly refuse collections, blue recycling bag capacity, general waste collection, drains, streetlights, pavements, roundabouts, green spaces, photographs, documents and even audit-related concerns.

Yet somehow the phrase “ONLY material thing of substance” survives in the public papers.

Who wrote that?

Who checked it?

Who thought, “Yes, that is a respectful way to describe residents’ concerns”?

At best it is sloppy. At worst it reveals the mindset.

Residents raise a whole neighbourhood decline issue. The system reduces it to the bit it wants to process.

The rest? Apparently not “material”.

Tell that to the residents living with the drains, the lights, the pavements, the rubbish and the state of the street.

The petition was closed.

Of course it was.

In Sandwell, “closed” can mean fixed, rejected, delayed, absorbed, ignored, misunderstood, or quietly escorted to the civic cupboard of no return.

Seymour Road — parked inside a bigger scheme

Seymour Road residents asked for the road to become one-way due to illegal parking, congestion and road traffic collisions.

The response is that there are longer-term plans for a major highway infrastructure scheme along the A457 at the junction with Rood End Road. Seymour Road and surrounding streets will need to be considered as part of that wider scheme.

That may be technically sensible.

It may also be a perfect place to lose a local issue.

Because once a street problem gets absorbed into a bigger scheme, residents can be left waiting years while consultants consult, designers design, funding funds, reviews review, and reports report.

Meanwhile, the problem remains outside people’s homes.

What interim measures are being considered?

Has collision data been reviewed?

Has parking enforcement been increased?

Will residents be consulted before the wider scheme locks everything in?

When is anything actually happening?

“Considered through the scheme design process” sounds official.

It also sounds like a very comfortable long grass.

The real problem — petitions are treated as workflow, not accountability

The Committee should be where residents force action.

Instead, too often, it looks like where local concerns are converted into officer workflow.

Resident concern goes in.

A report comes out.

Words appear: investigated, reviewed, considered, future update, future funding, no current priority, petition closed.

Everyone nods.

The machine resets for the next batch.

That is not meaningful local democracy.

That is admin with microphones.

A petition is not just another service request. It is evidence that residents feel ignored, unsafe, frustrated or desperate enough to organise collectively.

That should carry weight.

It should trigger visible accountability.

It should produce clear action, named responsibility and a timescale.

Not a polite paragraph and a promise to report back at some unspecified point in the future.

What Reform should do now

The new administration has a chance here.

A simple, practical reform would be to publish a live petitions tracker.

Not a foggy appendix buried in committee papers.

A proper public tracker showing:

The petition.
The ward.
The number of signatures.
The issue raised.
The action promised.
The responsible officer.
The responsible Cabinet Member.
The target date.
The current status.
The delivery outcome.
Whether the head petitioner agrees the matter is resolved.

And most importantly:

Do not close petitions until the action is delivered, rejected with full reasons, or transferred into another public process with a clear timetable.

Because “we will consider it” is not a solution.

“Funding may become available” is not a solution.

“An update will be provided at the meeting” is not transparency.

And “petition closed” is not a magic spell that makes potholes, speeding, fly-tipping, dark alleyways or muddy footpaths disappear.

Although in Sandwell, you do sometimes wonder if they have tried.

Final thought

The residents bringing these petitions are not asking for palaces, gold-plated lampposts or diamond-encrusted yellow lines.

They are asking for basic things.

Safe roads.
Clear junctions.
Cleaner streets.
Working lighting.
Less anti-social behaviour.
A safe alleyway.
A Council that listens and follows through.

That is not unreasonable.

That is local government 101.

The Cabinet Petitions Committee should be a place where residents see their concerns taken seriously and converted into action.

At the moment, too much of it still feels like:

Speak now… and watch your problem get filed, stamped and parked.

Sandwell deserves better than democracy by rubber stamp.

Residents deserve more than another update.

They deserve action.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #CabinetPetitionsCommittee #SandwellPetitions #LocalGovernment #CouncilScrutiny #RoadSafety #PublicSafety #Highways #AntiSocialBehaviour #FlyTipping #Tipton #Smethwick #Oldbury #SandwellGovernance #ResidentsDeserveBetter

 

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

There's confidence.

There's optimism.

There's wishful thinking.

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

Welcome to Sandwell.

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

Housing.

Roads.

Schools.

SEND.

Anti-social behaviour.

Council finances.

Regeneration.

Pride in Place.

Housing contracts.

School capital.

Corporate performance.

Millions upon millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

All wrapped up in a 710-page agenda pack.

Not a typo.

Seven hundred and ten pages.

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

Sandwell Cabinet Meeting – 15 July 2026 Agenda

Bring coffee.

Possibly an oxygen tank.

War and Peace? Lightweight.

To put 710 pages into perspective...

You could read George Orwell's 1984.

Then Animal Farm.

Have a sandwich.

Walk the dog.

Cut the grass.

Come back...

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

I've seen fewer pages in university dissertations.

I've bought shorter Haynes manuals.

The old Argos catalogue was less intimidating.

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

...they'll need forklifts.

Transparency? Or Death by PDF?

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

"Everything is publicly available."

Technically...

Yes.

So are the complete Hansard archives.

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

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

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

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

...inside another needle...

...inside a haystack.

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

Here's the uncomfortable truth.

No Cabinet Member can realistically:

• read 710 pages;

• understand every legal implication;

• digest every financial risk;

• challenge every recommendation;

• compare every appendix with previous reports;

• carry out ward casework;

• answer residents;

• attend meetings;

• hold down a job;

• have something resembling a family life...

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

Not Labour.

Not Reform.

Not Conservatives.

Not Independents.

Nobody.

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

...or they're bluffing.

This Isn't Scrutiny. It's Survival.

Cabinet exists for one reason.

To scrutinise.

To challenge.

To test assumptions.

To ask awkward questions.

To say:

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

Instead, meetings increasingly risk becoming:

Approved.

Approved.

Approved.

Noted.

Delegated.

Approved.

Next item.

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

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

Hidden amongst the mountain of paperwork is something rather inconvenient.

The Council's own performance report.

And guess what?

It's hardly a glowing report card.

Dozens of performance indicators remain red.

Housing is struggling.

Customer services are struggling.

SEND remains under pressure.

Complaints remain high.

Some indicators have stayed red quarter after quarter.

These aren't opposition figures.

They're the Council's own figures.

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

...we get another action plan.

Another strategy.

Another framework.

Another transformation programme.

Another governance structure.

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

The Great Delegation Machine

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

"Delegated Authority."

Approve the principle...

Delegate the detail...

Report back later...

Maybe.

It's becoming Cabinet Bingo.

Tick them off as you go:

☑ Approve

☑ Delegate

☑ Endorse

☑ Framework

☑ Transformation

☑ Partnership

☑ Review

☑ Action Plan

House!

Now, delegation has its place.

No council could function without it.

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

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

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

Quantity Isn't Quality

Somewhere in local government a strange myth has taken hold.

That the thicker the agenda...

...the better the governance.

Rubbish.

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

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

Good governance isn't measured in kilograms.

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

Here's a Crazy Suggestion...

Split the agenda.

Hold another Cabinet meeting.

Prioritise genuinely urgent business.

Publish proper executive summaries.

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

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

...what exactly can?

The Bigger Problem

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

Many of them contain worthwhile proposals.

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

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

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

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

Not deliberately perhaps.

But effectively.

And there's an old saying...

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

Or, in local government...

Hide it somewhere around page 487.

One Final Thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandwell Planning Bingo: HMOs, Care Homes, Retrospective Wonders and the Weekly List of Doom

Sandwell Planning Bingo: HMOs, Care Homes, Retrospective Wonders and the Weekly List of Doom

There are some things in life you can rely on.

The sun rises. The bins sometimes get emptied. A council report will always contain the phrase “robust governance” shortly before proving the opposite. And Sandwell’s weekly planning lists will quietly drop a few little grenades among the porches, dormers and “single-storey rear extensions”.

At first glance, the weekly planning list looks harmless enough.

A porch here.
A garage conversion there.
A rear extension.
A dormer.
A summer house.
A small outbuilding that will absolutely, definitely, never ever become anything else. Honest, guv.

But look a little closer and the picture changes.

Since April, Sandwell’s planning lists have shown a steady stream of applications for HMOs, children’s residential care homes, supported living, retrospective development, infill housing, open-space development, council-linked applications and major condition discharges.

All tucked neatly away in weekly lists as if they are just another replacement canopy.

Nothing to see here, residents. Move along. Preferably before the consultation deadline passes.

The HMO conveyor belt

Let us start with HMOs, because apparently ordinary family homes are now just a warm-up act before the beds, bins and bike stores arrive.

We have seen applications for:

• a proposed 9-bedroom / 9-person HMO at 1 Queens Road, Smethwick;
• a 7-person HMO proposal at 124 Cheshire Road, Smethwick, returning after previous refusals;
• a continued 13-bedroom / 13-person HMO at Walsall Street, Wednesbury;
• an 8-person HMO proposal at 322 High Street, Smethwick, also following a refused application;
• other supported living and HMO-style proposals dotted around the borough.

And then residents have the sheer cheek to notice.

How unreasonable of them.

Residents in Smethwick and Wednesbury are now launching petitions, raising objections and asking why their streets are being changed one property at a time. One petition against the Queens Road HMO has attracted hundreds of signatures. Another petition raises wider concerns around Churchfields Road and Wednesbury, with residents complaining about HMO growth, enforcement, alleged loopholes and the loss of ordinary family housing.

Then there is Cheshire Road, where press coverage has highlighted plans returning again after earlier objections and refusals. Apparently, in planning world, “no” can sometimes mean “come back with a slightly different version and see if everyone is too tired to object this time”.

It is like Groundhog Day, but with more bin stores.

Planning, licensing and the great Sandwell shrug

The council will no doubt remind everyone that planning and licensing are different things.

Indeed they are.

Planning looks at land use. Licensing looks at standards, safety and management. Enforcement looks at breaches. Community safety looks at anti-social behaviour. Housing looks at conditions. The police look at crime. Residents look at the street they actually live in.

And therein lies the problem.

Everyone has a little piece of the jigsaw, but residents are the ones standing there trying to work out why the picture on the box appears to show their road being slowly turned into a dormitory corridor.

If Sandwell has live HMO applications, licensed HMOs, suspected unlicensed HMOs, repeat applications, petitions, resident objections and enforcement concerns, then the answer cannot be “that’s another department”.

That is not governance.
That is municipal pass-the-parcel.

And sadly, when the music stops, it is usually the residents holding the parcel. Normally with a planning notice wrapped around it.

Children’s homes: serious issue, serious scrutiny needed

Then we have the growing number of applications for children’s residential care homes.

Let us be absolutely clear. Vulnerable children need safe, stable, properly run homes. Nobody decent argues otherwise.

But that does not mean every ordinary dwelling can be converted without proper questions being asked.

Since April, applications have appeared across Sandwell for children’s residential care homes and C2 uses, including in Great Barr, Tividale, Wednesbury, Smethwick, Cradley Heath, Oldbury and West Bromwich.

Some are for two children. Some are for three. Some for four. Some involve garage conversions. Some come through lawful development routes. Some appear as retention. Some sit near other applications and should be looked at cumulatively, not as isolated little dots on a map.

The planning question is not simply “how many children?”

The question is: how does the property operate?

Will there be staff rotas?
Sleeping-in staff?
Managers?
Professional visitors?
Emergency call-outs?
Shift changes?
Extra vehicles?
Safeguarding requirements?
Ofsted registration?
Police consultation?
Children’s Services input?

If the answer is “we’ll look at that later”, then that is not good enough.

This is not about opposing care. It is about making sure care is properly located, properly scrutinised and properly joined up.

Children deserve better than planning-by-spreadsheet. Residents deserve better than finding out after the event.

Retrospective planning: build first, ask nicely later

Another little gem running through the weekly lists is the number of retrospective or retention applications.

Retention of storage units.
Retention of outbuildings.
Retention of extensions.
Retention of walls, gates and piers.
Retention of business uses.
Retrospective change of use.

At this point, “retention” is becoming one of Sandwell’s most popular architectural styles.

Now, not every retrospective application is scandalous. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes the rules are complicated. Sometimes the works are minor.

But when the pattern keeps appearing, residents are entitled to ask whether the system is controlling development or merely tidying up after it.

Because there is a big difference between:

“Can I have permission to do this?”

and

“I’ve done it. Fancy approving it?”

One respects the planning process.
The other treats it like a customer feedback form.

The quiet danger of condition discharges

Then we have discharge of conditions.

Lovely phrase, that. Very soothing. Very technical. Sounds like something best left to officers in a quiet room with a spreadsheet and a cup of council-issue coffee.

But condition discharges are where the detail lives.

Drainage.
Parking.
Contamination.
Landscaping.
Noise.
Lighting.
Construction management.
Waste.
Highways.
Materials.
Access.

In other words, all the stuff residents actually care about.

Since April, we have seen condition discharges linked to major or sensitive sites including Lidl at Horseley Heath, Oldbury Police Station, The Hayes in West Bromwich, Lewis Street, Mill Street, Kings Hill Business Park and Heath Lane Hospital.

These should not disappear into the technical mist.

Councillors should demand plain-English summaries. Residents should know what is being signed off. If a condition affects traffic, drainage, noise, waste, construction or amenity, then it matters.

Calling something “technical” should not be a magic cloak of invisibility.

Open space: treasured until someone wants to build on it

Then we come to open space.

Brook Road Open Space. Brandhall. Former golf course land. Sites that trigger the usual warm words about biodiversity, community, trees, drainage, access, play space and local value.

And then suddenly, when a scheme appears, everyone is expected to nod along because it is “needed”, “strategic”, “regeneration”, “best use of land”, or whatever phrase has been freshly removed from the council buzzword cupboard.

Brandhall and Causeway Green Primary School raise major questions because the council is not just some distant observer. It has interests, roles and responsibilities. Where the council is applicant, promoter, landowner, service provider or decision-maker, the transparency bar should be higher, not lower.

Brook Road Open Space raises a simple question too:

If it is open space, why are we building on it?

And if the answer is “well, this was approved years ago”, then councillors should ask whether circumstances have changed. Policy changes. Biodiversity expectations change. Drainage concerns change. Local need changes. Community value changes.

A previous approval should not be treated like a planning relic brought down from Mount Oldbury on tablets of stone.

Friar Park: planning pressure without the gloss

Friar Park also keeps appearing in the planning lists.

Some of it is routine. Some of it is not.

The standout is Alma Street and the proposal for 10 self-contained flats. That is not just a little domestic tweak. That raises parking, bins, amenity, access, fire safety and over-intensification questions.

There are also other Friar Park and Stone Cross applications involving extensions, outbuildings, retention matters and side developments.

One application by itself may be manageable. The problem is what happens when every “small” application is treated as isolated and nobody looks at the total pressure on the area.

Planning cannot be done street by street, application by application, with no wider memory.

Residents know when parking is already tight.
Residents know when bins are already a problem.
Residents know when services are stretched.
Residents know when the character of an area is changing.

The council needs to know too.

And if it does know, it needs to show its working.

Infill, backland and the “just one more house” trick

Then there is the steady stream of infill and backland proposals.

A dwelling to the side.
A dwelling to the rear.
A former business site becoming homes.
Land adjacent this.
Land behind that.
A small highway here.
A few flats there.

One application may look small. The cumulative effect is not.

Residents know what this means: more traffic, more parking stress, more bins, more overlooking, more construction disruption and less breathing space.

This is exactly why people lose faith in planning. Each individual application is described as manageable. Each concern is treated as not quite enough to refuse. Then five years later everyone wonders why the area feels overcrowded, overparked and underplanned.

A thousand small permissions still add up to one big problem.

Council-linked applications: transparency please

There are also repeated applications involving Sandwell Council links, Roway Lane, Sandwell Council House, Home Improvement Agency, Urban Design, schools and council-associated agents.

Some of these will be perfectly proper. Some may be home adaptations. Some may help vulnerable residents. Good. Nobody should oppose that for the sake of it.

But council-linked applications need transparency.

If the council is applicant, agent, landowner, funder, service provider or decision-maker, residents and councillors should know.

Not because everything is dodgy.
But because secrecy breeds suspicion faster than Japanese knotweed on a neglected council embankment.

Reform now owns the response

This is where the politics comes in.

Reform now controls Sandwell Council.

They did not create every application in the pipeline. They inherited much of the machinery. But they now own the response.

That means they cannot simply stand at the side shouting “Labour did it” while the same system keeps rolling along.

The public will not care who started the conveyor belt if nobody bothers to press stop, pause or at least read what is coming down it.

Reform councillors now need to show whether “change” means change, or whether it means a different colour rosette on the same old planning fog machine.

They should be demanding:

• a live HMO tracker;
• a licensed HMO map;
• a suspected unlicensed HMO tracker;
• a children’s home and C2 tracker;
• a retrospective planning report;
• a council-linked application register;
• plain-English condition summaries;
• ward-level planning alerts;
• HMO concentration mapping;
• proper links between planning, licensing, enforcement, housing, safeguarding and police.

In short: grip.

Not slogans.
Not press photos.
Not “we are listening” while the delegated decision train leaves the station.

Actual grip.

Residents should not need a planning law degree

The basic point is this: residents should not need to become amateur planning consultants to understand what is happening in their road.

They should not have to search weekly lists, decode use classes, spot LDCs, track repeat applications, read officer reports, count bedrooms, compare refusal reasons, check HMO licensing, and then work out whether their objection is “material” enough to be taken seriously.

Yet that is what the system expects.

Then when residents get angry, officialdom acts surprised.

“Why are people so cynical?”

Maybe because they have seen too many decisions made quietly.
Too many retrospective applications regularised.
Too many objections politely noted and filed in the drawer marked “resident noise”.
Too many consultations that feel like theatre.
Too many “minor amendments” that are not minor to the people living next door.

Final thought

Not every planning application is bad.

Not every HMO is bad.
Not every children’s home is bad.
Not every extension is bad.
Not every condition discharge is suspicious.
Not every council-linked application is a problem.

But patterns matter.

And the pattern since April is clear.

More HMOs. Bigger HMOs. Repeat HMOs. Public petitions. More children’s homes. More supported living. More retention applications. More infill. More technical condition discharges. More council-linked entries. More pressure on residents to spot the issue before it is too late.

Sandwell Council needs to stop treating these weekly lists like dull paperwork.

They are not dull paperwork.

They are the early warning system for how neighbourhoods are being changed.

If Reform councillors want to prove they are different, this is a good place to start.

Read the lists. Ask the questions. Demand the maps. Challenge the loopholes. Track the repeat applications. Make officers explain things in plain English. Make sure residents are heard before decisions are made, not after the diggers turn up.

Because if the new administration lets the same old planning machine carry on unchecked, residents will notice.

And this time, “we inherited it” will only work for so long.

Sooner or later, the question becomes:

Who is controlling the council?

The councillors?

Or the weekly list of doom?

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #Planning #HMOs #Smethwick #Wednesbury #WestBromwich #Oldbury #GreatBarr #Tipton #FriarPark #PlanningEnforcement #ResidentVoice #LocalDemocracy #ReformCouncil #WeeklyListOfDoom

Sandwell Council’s Pledge Factory: Time For A Proper Audit, Not Another Badge

Sandwell Council’s Pledge Factory: Time For A Proper Audit, Not Another Badge

Sandwell Council does love a pledge.

A covenant here. A charter there. A strategy over there. A badge, a logo, a partnership board, a consultation, a launch event, a glossy PDF, and usually a photograph of somebody important-looking standing next to a pull-up banner pretending this is all terribly meaningful.

We have had the Armed Forces Covenant. The Hate Crime Pledge. The Domestic Abuse Pledge. Slavery-Free Sandwell. Borough of Sanctuary. Social Value. EDI. Child Friendly Sandwell. Dementia Friendly Sandwell. Animal Welfare Charter. Young Carers Covenant. Town twinning. Climate commitments. Green Flag ambitions. Place branding. Civic pride campaigns. Partnerships. Frameworks. Boards. Meetings. Sub-groups. Toolkits. Buzzwords.

Some of these may be valuable. Some may be legally necessary. Some may help vulnerable people. Some may bring agencies together.

But the question now needs to be asked properly:

What do they cost, what do they deliver, who owns them, and do they actually improve life for Sandwell residents?

Because residents do not live inside a strategy document. They live in streets where bins need emptying, fly-tipping needs clearing, anti-social behaviour needs tackling, housing repairs need doing, roads need fixing, vulnerable people need supporting, parks need maintaining, and public services need answering the phone.

A badge does not fill a pothole.
A pledge does not clear a dumped mattress.
A charter does not house a veteran.
A glossy strategy does not support a domestic abuse victim unless there is actual service delivery behind it.

And a photograph of councillors nodding solemnly next to a banner does not count as an outcome.

This Is Not About Scrapping Good Causes

Let us be clear.

This is not an argument for ignoring hate crime, domestic abuse, modern slavery, veterans, disabled people, refugees, children in care, young carers, older people, dementia, animal welfare or community safety.

It is the opposite.

If something matters, it should be properly delivered, properly measured and properly scrutinised.

The problem is not that Sandwell Council has values. The problem is that Sandwell appears to have developed a growing pledge-and-badge culture, where worthy words are launched, promoted and photographed, but residents are left wondering what has actually changed.

A proper rationalisation review would not mean throwing everything in the bin.

It would mean asking:

• what is legally required;
• what is genuinely useful;
• what duplicates existing law or policy;
• what has no measurable outcome;
• what costs money or officer time;
• what should be retained;
• what should be merged;
• what should be simplified;
• what should be stopped.

That is not extremism. That is basic governance.

The Positive Case For Rationalisation

Rationalisation should be seen as a positive reform.

It could make the Council sharper, leaner and more focused. It could reduce duplication. It could free up officer time. It could cut unnecessary consultancy, events, publicity, memberships, accreditation work, meetings, reports and internal bureaucracy.

More importantly, it could redirect effort back into the services residents actually notice.

Sandwell Council’s approved net budget for 2026/27 is £464.48 million. Even tiny percentage savings across a budget of that size are not insignificant. A saving of just 0.05% would be about £232,000. A saving of 0.1% would be about £464,000. A saving of 0.2% would be about £929,000. A saving of 0.3% would be around £1.39 million. Sandwell Council confirmed the £464.48 million total net budget when the 2026/27 budget was approved.

Nobody should pretend that reviewing pledges and charters will solve every financial problem. It will not.

But is it really impossible that Sandwell could save £250,000 to £500,000 by removing duplication, cutting non-essential consultancy, reducing meetings, merging boards, ending weak accreditations, trimming publicity and redirecting staff time?

Is it impossible that a more serious review could find close to £1 million in cashable and non-cashable savings if unnecessary posts, projects, memberships, events, contracts, grants and consultancy were properly examined?

I would suggest the burden is now on the Council to prove there is not a saving.

Sandwell Is Missing Targets, So Focus Matters

This all matters because Sandwell Council is not currently in a position to indulge endless civic wallpaper.

The Council’s own Quarter 2 performance report for 2025/26 says it measured 87 indicators between July and September 2025. It met or exceeded 41, nearly met 11, and missed 35. That means 40% of the indicators were missed.

So before Sandwell adds another pledge, another board, another charter, another strategy, another logo and another “exciting journey”, councillors should ask:

Are the basics being delivered?

If 40% of measured indicators are being missed, then officer time matters. Management attention matters. Meeting time matters. Every report, every board, every launch event and every duplicate strategy has a cost.

Even where there is “no direct financial implication”, there is still officer time, HR time, legal time, communications time, management time and scrutiny time.

That is not free. It is just hidden.

The Armed Forces Covenant: Keep The Duty, Prove The Delivery

We have already looked at Sandwell Council’s Armed Forces Covenant.

The principles are sound: no member of the armed forces community should face disadvantage when accessing local services, and in some circumstances special treatment may be appropriate, especially for the injured and bereaved. Sandwell’s own page sets out those key principles.

This is not something that should simply be scrapped as “just another pledge”. There are legal duties around the Covenant in areas such as housing, education and healthcare.

But the local machinery still needs scrutiny.

If there is a partnership board, where are the minutes?
Where are the actions?
Where are the KPIs?
How many veterans have been helped?
How many housing cases have been affected?
How many armed forces families have had barriers removed?
What has changed since adoption?

Armed Forces Day photographs are nice. Comments about respect are nice. But our armed forces community deserve more than ceremonial warm words, poppy-season speeches and civic chest-puffing.

The Covenant should be kept where it protects veterans and families. But the delivery structure should still have to prove its effectiveness.

EDI / DEI: Equality Law Already Exists

The EDI/DEI issue is one of the clearest examples of where scrutiny is needed.

Sandwell Council’s own EDI page says the EDI team provides advice, support and guidance to ensure the Council meets its statutory responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 in providing fair and accessible services.

Sandwell Cabinet also approved the EDI Strategy 2026–2029, “Unity through Inclusion”. The decision report states that, under the Equality Act 2010, the Council is legally required to ensure equality is actively considered and embedded throughout services and functions. It also links the strategy to the Local Government Association Equality Framework.

So the question is not whether equality matters. Of course fair treatment matters. Of course discrimination should be tackled. Of course services should be accessible.

The question is whether Sandwell needs a large separate EDI structure, with extra meetings, training, internal process, reports, staff networks, action plans, frameworks and external benchmarking — or whether fairness should simply be built into normal lawful service delivery.

If DEI becomes a separate industry inside the Council, residents are entitled to ask:

What does it cost?
How many staff are involved?
How much consultant time is used?
How many training hours are required?
How many Equality Impact Assessments actually changed a decision?
What improved for residents?
Could the same statutory duties be met more simply and cheaply?

Equality is too important to be turned into a paperwork factory.

Woke Words Or Working Services?

There is a phrase residents use when they see too much of this stuff: virtue signalling.

That phrase annoys some people, but perhaps it annoys them because it lands a little too close to the truth.

When a council says “zero tolerance”, what does that actually mean?

Sandwell’s Hate Crime work talks about tackling hatred, increasing awareness, supporting victims, encouraging reporting and working with partners. Fine.

But residents should be able to see how many reports were made, how many were acted on, what support was provided, where hotspots are, what has changed in schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods, and whether victims feel safer.

Sandwell’s Domestic Abuse Pledge says domestic abuse and sexual abuse will not be tolerated, victims’ voices will be heard, perpetrators will be addressed, and communities will be engaged.

Again, fine.

But where are the public outcomes? How long are people waiting for support? What is refuge capacity? What are repeat victim figures? What does prevention actually mean in practice?

“Zero tolerance” is a fine phrase. But without measurable action, it is just “No Place For Hate” printed on expensive cardboard.

Borough Of Sanctuary: No Wonder Residents Are Confused

Sandwell also says it is a Borough of Sanctuary.

The Council says the strategy was developed by the Council, residents and local organisations forming Sandwell’s Borough of Sanctuary Partnership, and that the strategy sets out commitments to welcoming and integrating individuals and families who arrive in Sandwell.

That may have decent intentions. It may help new arrivals understand services, reduce isolation, improve community cohesion and prevent exploitation.

But residents are entitled to ask what it means in plain English.

Does it affect housing?
Does it affect funding?
Does it affect access to services?
Who approved it?
What does it cost?
Who runs it?
What are the outcomes?
How is it reviewed?

And there is another awkward point. The Sandwell Borough of Sanctuary page on the City of Sanctuary website currently says the group is inactive.

So Sandwell Council says it is a recognised Council of Sanctuary, while the local City of Sanctuary group page says inactive.

Well, that is helpful, isn’t it?

No wonder residents are confused. If the Council wants to use big emotional labels like “sanctuary”, it must explain them properly and publish the evidence.

Social Value: This One Might Have Teeth

Not every pledge should be dismissed.

Social Value, for example, could be one of the more useful areas if it is properly monitored. Procurement and commissioning can be used to support local jobs, apprenticeships, small businesses, community benefit and environmental improvement.

That is not just badge-wearing. That could be serious.

But again, the test is delivery.

How many local jobs?
How many apprenticeships?
How much local spend?
How many small Sandwell businesses won contracts?
How many promised benefits were actually delivered after contracts were signed?

Social Value should not be a magic phrase used to bless contracts that were going ahead anyway.

If it delivers, keep it and strengthen it. If it is just tender-box poetry, rewrite it.

Twinning: Nice For The Few, But What About The Many?

Sandwell’s long-standing twinning link with Le Blanc-Mesnil in France appears to have some cultural and educational value. There is evidence of visits, hosting, student involvement and anniversary activity.

That is fine as far as it goes.

But let us be honest: how many Sandwell residents know who we are twinned with? How many have benefited? How much does it cost? Has it brought investment, trade, tourism, school links, business links, or just a few civic receptions and photo opportunities?

If twinning is valuable, prove it.

If it is harmless and mainly volunteer-led, say so.

If it costs public money, publish the figures.

Civic nostalgia is not a performance indicator.

What A Full Review Should Do

The new controlling group should order a full review of every Sandwell Council pledge, charter, accreditation, covenant, twinning arrangement, “friendly borough” scheme, civic status, partnership commitment and public-facing badge.

The review should not begin with the assumption that everything must go.

It should begin with the assumption that everything must prove its worth.

Each item should be placed into one of five categories:

1. Retain and strengthen — where it is statutory, useful and delivering outcomes.
2. Retain but improve reporting — where it is useful but poorly evidenced.
3. Merge into existing policy — where law or policy already covers the issue.
4. Pause or redesign — where purpose, cost or benefit is unclear.
5. End — where there is no clear resident benefit or value for money.

That is how a sensible Council should behave.

Create A Public Register

Sandwell should publish a single public register of all pledges, charters, accreditations, civic statuses, twinning arrangements and “friendly borough” initiatives.

For each one it should show:

• date adopted;
• who approved it;
• whether it is statutory or voluntary;
• lead councillor;
• lead officer;
• annual budget;
• officer time;
• consultancy cost;
• membership or accreditation fees;
• communications and publicity cost;
• event, travel or hospitality cost;
• action plan;
• KPIs;
• latest performance update;
• review date;
• evidence of benefit to residents;
• recommendation to retain, merge, redesign or end.

If the Council cannot provide that, then perhaps the pledge was not much of a pledge in the first place.

Perhaps it was just gloss.

The Saving Should Be Set As A Target

A review like this should not be vague.

Sandwell should set a target to identify at least £250,000 to £500,000 in savings or capacity release from rationalising duplicated pledge work, unnecessary meetings, consultancy, communications, accreditation chasing, events, and overlapping officer time.

A stronger review should be asked to test whether £1 million or more could be saved or redirected over a full year if weak schemes, duplicated functions, posts, contracts, events, grants and consultancy are included.

That does not mean cutting statutory duties. It does not mean abandoning vulnerable people. It does not mean ignoring equality law, domestic abuse, veterans, hate crime or safeguarding.

It means asking whether the Council is spending too much time describing itself as caring, inclusive, welcoming and committed — and not enough time proving it through ordinary services.

Bottom Line

Some pledges should stay.

Some should be strengthened.

Some should be merged into normal lawful service delivery.

Some should be stopped.

But every one of them should now have to answer the same questions:

What do you cost?
What do you deliver?
Who benefits?
What would residents lose if you disappeared tomorrow?
Could the same outcome be achieved more simply, more cheaply and more effectively?

Sandwell residents do not need more woke words, virtue signals and civic wallpaper.

They need effective services, honest reporting, value for money and long-term positive outcomes.

The pledge factory needs an audit.

And if some of the badges turn out to be all gloss and no substance, they should be quietly peeled off the wall — with the savings put back into the basics residents actually need.

#SandwellCouncil #CouncilPledges #ArmedForcesCovenant #BoroughOfSanctuary #EDI #DEI #SocialValue #TownTwinning #Governance #ValueForMoney #LocalDemocracy #Scrutiny #PublicAccountability #CouncilSpending