Sandwell Says It Consulted Us. Lovely. So Where Are the People?

Sandwell Says It Consulted Us. Lovely. So Where Are the People?

Sandwell Council has been busy telling us how seriously it takes community safety.

Crime. Anti-social behaviour. CCTV. Shop closures. Fires. Modern slavery. Cuckooing. Hate crime. Safe Spaces. Street racing. Youth safety.

There's certainly no shortage of initiatives, press releases, partnerships, operations, strategies, logos or photographs of people standing next to banners.

And now we're heading towards a shiny new Sandwell Community Safety Strategy 2026–2030.

Apparently, we've all helped shape it.

Wonderful.

There's just one slight problem.

How many of us actually did?

Because I've been digging through the paperwork and, at the moment, Sandwell appears remarkably reluctant to tell us.

WE ASKED, YOU SAID... HOW MANY OF YOU SAID IT?

There was a consultation.

Let's make that absolutely clear.

The Community Safety Strategy Consultation 2025 ran from 29 August until 3 October 2025 and was open to people who live, work or study in Sandwell.

People were asked about crime, anti-social behaviour, how safe they felt, what worried them and what they thought Sandwell's priorities should be.

So far, so good.

Then we reach the results.

Apparently:

“People shared...”

“You highlighted...”

and there was apparently:

“strong support...”

Excellent.

But how many people?

Twenty?

Fifty?

Five hundred?

Five thousand?

We don't know.

At least, Sandwell's published summary doesn't appear to tell us.

And that rather matters.

If 18 people out of 20 support something, that's 90%.

Sounds impressive.

But it is hardly the same as 4,500 people out of 5,000 saying it.

Percentages and phrases such as “strong support” aren't terribly useful if nobody tells you how many people answered the question.

WHERE ARE THE RESULTS?

I've looked.

Where is the detailed consultation report?

Where is the breakdown by town?

West Bromwich?

Wednesbury?

Tipton?

Oldbury?

Smethwick?

Rowley Regis?

Where is the ward breakdown?

Where are the demographics?

How many respondents were ordinary residents?

How many worked for public bodies?

How many were voluntary organisations?

How many community groups responded?

Which ones?

Where are the tables showing how people answered each question?

Where are the anonymised comments?

Where is the report showing what actually changed in the strategy as a result of what residents said?

At present, the public trail appears remarkably thin.

And that is particularly odd because Sandwell manages to publish response numbers for other consultations.

Some consultations tell us eight people responded.

Others tell us 70 people responded.

Others tell us nearly 800 responded.

They can even tell us about meetings, workshops, paper questionnaires and community groups involved.

Yet for something as important as the borough's Community Safety Strategy, apparently we're supposed to make do with:

“People shared...”

Come on.

WHO EXACTLY WAS CONSULTED?

This becomes even more interesting when you look at Sandwell's own description of the Safer Sandwell Partnership.

The Council says it is supported by organisations including:

- Neighbourhood Watch groups;

- Independent Advisory Group volunteers;

- Sandwell Crime Prevention Panel;

- tenants' and residents' associations.

Excellent.

So surely they were central to developing the new strategy?

Were they?

Did Sandwell's Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator submit a response?

How many individual Neighbourhood Watch schemes were contacted?

Was the Sandwell Police Independent Advisory Group formally consulted?

Was the Sandwell Crime Prevention Panel asked for its views?

Were StreetWatch volunteers involved?

Which tenants' and residents' associations were contacted?

Which Friends groups?

Which community organisations?

Which faith organisations?

Which disability organisations?

Which groups representing older people?

Which youth organisations?

Which businesses?

Where is the list?

If they were involved, great.

Publish it.

If they weren't, perhaps somebody might explain why organisations that Sandwell itself says support its Community Safety Partnership weren't at the heart of consulting on its Community Safety Strategy.

COMMUNITY SAFETY OR COMMUNITY BROADCASTING?

The August Community Safety Bulletin is actually packed with information.

There's quite a bit in it that is genuinely useful.

But there is a recurring theme.

Report this.

Tell the council that.

Call the police.

Send your CCTV footage.

Keep an evidence diary.

Look after your property.

All sensible enough.

But there's much less about how ordinary residents actually become part of community safety.

Where's the big section saying:

JOIN YOUR LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

START A NEW WATCH SCHEME

JOIN STREETWATCH

APPLY TO JOIN THE POLICE IAG

GET INVOLVED WITH THE CRIME PREVENTION PANEL

MEET YOUR LOCAL PCSO

ATTEND A COMMUNITY SAFETY MEETING

HELP SET LOCAL POLICING PRIORITIES

That's community involvement.

Community safety shouldn't just mean:

“Something's gone wrong – please report it.”

It should also mean:

“Come and help prevent it happening in the first place.”

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH – HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

This is perhaps the strangest omission.

Neighbourhood Watch is still operating in Sandwell.

There is a Sandwell Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator.

There are current events.

Neighbourhood Watch has even been involved in Sandwell's own Safer 6 programme.

So why isn't it being heavily promoted through every Community Safety Bulletin?

Imagine the usefulness of a permanent section giving residents:

- their local Watch contact;

- information on joining;

- information on establishing a new scheme;

- details of local meetings;

- links to their neighbourhood policing team.

Instead, residents could read page after page of community-safety material without really understanding that there are ways for them to become directly involved.

THE POLICE IAG

There's also a Sandwell Independent Advisory Group.

The IAG is supposed to provide independent community advice to West Midlands Police.

That is potentially a very important bridge between residents and policing.

So why isn't recruitment to it permanently advertised?

How many people sit on it?

Which parts of Sandwell do they represent?

How are members recruited?

How representative is it?

And crucially:

What input did the Sandwell IAG have into the new Community Safety Strategy?

Again, if the answer is “lots”, fantastic.

Show us.

THE CRIME PREVENTION PANEL

Then there's the Sandwell Crime Prevention Panel.

Sandwell Council itself lists it as a voluntary organisation involving the public in crime prevention.

Sandwell's own partnership material says the Panel supports the Community Safety Partnership.

Yet your average resident could probably read the entire Community Safety Bulletin and never realise it exists.

Why?

This is exactly the sort of independent voluntary body that should be encouraged, promoted and connected directly into local communities.

Not hidden three menus deep on a council website.

CONSULTATION SHOULDN'T JUST MEAN PUTTING A FORM ONLINE

This is another important point.

Putting an online survey on the Council's Consultation Hub is not the same thing as proving that you've reached Sandwell's communities.

Did Sandwell go into libraries?

Community centres?

Neighbourhood Watch meetings?

Residents' associations?

Mosques?

Churches?

Schools?

Colleges?

High-rise blocks?

Older people's groups?

Disability organisations?

Markets?

Town centres?

Did they provide paper copies?

Did officers actually go out and speak to people who wouldn't dream of visiting Sandwell Council's Consultation Hub?

Because there are tens of thousands of Sandwell residents who are never going to spend an evening browsing Citizen Space looking for surveys.

If engagement is dominated by organisations already inside the system, we risk hearing from the same people over and over again.

Then everyone congratulates themselves for having “consulted the community”.

AND THEN THERE'S THE DELAY

The consultation closed on 3 October 2025.

The public feedback page was updated on 29 May 2026.

Nearly eight months later.

Why?

If somebody takes the trouble to participate in a consultation, surely one of the most basic principles of engagement is telling them reasonably quickly what happened.

Otherwise residents eventually reach the conclusion that filling in consultations is simply another method of feeding comments into a large municipal black hole.

DON'T TELL US YOU CONSULTED – SHOW US

The new Community Safety Strategy 2026–2030 is heading towards Cabinet in September.

And before councillors wave it through, I'd like to see the evidence behind the consultation.

Not a paragraph saying residents were engaged.

Not another infographic.

Not another photograph of a partnership meeting.

The evidence.

How many responses?

Who responded?

Where were they from?

Which groups took part?

Which groups were invited?

What did they say?

What recommendations were made?

What was rejected?

What was accepted?

And most importantly:

WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED BECAUSE THE PUBLIC SPOKE?

Because that is the difference between consultation and consultation theatre.

COMMUNITY SAFETY SHOULD BELONG TO THE COMMUNITY

There's an enormous amount of goodwill sitting in Sandwell's communities.

Residents who know exactly where the problems are.

Neighbourhood Watch volunteers.

StreetWatch.

Residents' groups.

Friends groups.

Crime-prevention volunteers.

Businesses.

Faith groups.

Young people.

Older residents.

People who have lived in the same neighbourhood for 40 years and know more about what happens on their street than anybody sitting behind a desk in Oldbury.

Use them.

Listen to them.

Help them organise.

Give them a genuine route into decision-making.

And then publish what happened as a result.

The slogan in Sandwell's Community Safety Bulletin is:

“Building a safer community together.”

Good slogan.

Now let's make the word “together” actually mean something.

Because community safety shouldn't be something done to communities, or even merely done for communities.

It should be something done with them.

And before Sandwell's shiny new four-year strategy gets approved, somebody needs to answer one very simple question:

HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY HELPED WRITE THE STORY SANDWELL IS NOW TELLING US?

I'll be watching the September Cabinet papers very carefully.

And I'll update this when Sandwell provides the missing answers.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #CommunitySafety #SaferSandwell #NeighbourhoodWatch #WestMidlandsPolice #SandwellPolice #CommunityEngagement #PublicConsultation #ASB #CrimePrevention #StreetWatch #Safer6 #LocalDemocracy #CouncilTransparency #SandwellCommunitySafety #CommunitySafetyStrategy

Sandwell's Paper Trail Gets Thicker – £7.6 Million, A Cabinet Call-In And Some Questions That Should Have Been Asked Earlier

Sandwell's Paper Trail Gets Thicker – £7.6 Million, A Cabinet Call-In And Some Questions That Should Have Been Asked Earlier

Updated 13 August 2026

A few days ago I wrote about Sandwell Council's growing Forward Plan and the pile of reports heading towards Cabinet and scrutiny.

The point was fairly simple.

Don't wait until the decision has been made before reading the paperwork.

Ask the questions beforehand.

Well, barely had the virtual ink dried before another bundle of Sandwell paperwork arrived.

And this one is particularly interesting.

On Thursday 20 August at 6pm, the Budget and Corporate Scrutiny Management Board will hold what is effectively a special meeting to consider the call-in of Cabinet's decision on the Crisis and Resilience Fund 2026/27–2028/29.

Apart from the minutes and usual housekeeping, that's the only substantive business on the agenda.

So here we have something I've been asking for:

Scrutiny actually scrutinising something.

Steady now.

£7.6 Million A Year Is Not Small Change

The Crisis and Resilience Fund replaces elements of the old Household Support Fund and Discretionary Housing Payments.

Sandwell has been allocated approximately:

£7.599 million for 2026/27

with similar sums expected in each of the following two years.

So potentially we're talking about roughly:

£22.8 MILLION over three years.

The proposed first-year spending includes:

- £1.451m for housing payments;

- £1.335m for crisis payments;

- £1.850m for other crisis support;

- £494,000 for additional Welfare Rights staff and software;

- a whopping £2 million for new resilience pilot projects;

- and £469,000 for administration.

This money is supposed to help some of Sandwell's most financially vulnerable residents.

Food.

Energy.

Housing.

People suffering an unexpected financial shock.

Families struggling to cope.

People leaving domestic abuse.

Disabled residents.

People at risk of homelessness.

This is not some obscure procurement exercise involving photocopier toner.

It matters.

So Why Has The Decision Been Called In?

The Cabinet decision of 15 July has been challenged by councillors on a fairly substantial collection of grounds.

These include:

- no published Equality Impact Assessment;

- insufficient consideration of continuing free-school-meal holiday vouchers;

- no consultation with affected families;

- concerns about how late the decision was made;

- no figures showing how many families would be affected;

- barriers created by replacing automatic support with an application system;

- no clear indication of processing times;

- uncertainty over administration costs;

- and inadequate information about how the scheme would be publicised.

Having now read the whole 48-page pack, I think several of these questions deserve proper answers.

RED FLAG ONE: The Equality Assessment That Was Coming Later

This one immediately jumped off the page.

The Cabinet report states:

“An Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken to support this decision.”

Will be?

Cabinet was already being asked to make the decision.

Now, before anybody starts sharpening the lawyer, this does not automatically mean the Cabinet decision was unlawful.

The legal requirement is to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty. A particular document carrying the title “Equality Impact Assessment” isn't magically the sole determining factor.

But the Equality and Human Rights Commission's guidance is pretty clear that where an Equality Impact Assessment is required it should be undertaken before the decision is made, because the whole purpose is for equality evidence to inform the decision-making process.

The Government's own Crisis and Resilience Fund guidance also tells councils to consider whether their local schemes disadvantage people with protected characteristics and to identify mitigation where necessary.

So the question for 20 August is very straightforward:

What equality evidence did Cabinet have in front of it on 15 July?

If the assessment was produced afterwards, what exactly was it influencing?

The wallpaper?

RED FLAG TWO: Government Did NOT Simply Ban Holiday Food Vouchers

This needs clearing up because there has been plenty of argument around it.

Sandwell decided against continuing blanket holiday vouchers for all families whose children receive benefit-related free school meals.

That is a policy decision the Council was entitled to consider.

But the Government guidance is rather more nuanced than simply saying:

«“You can't do vouchers anymore.”»

It says councils should decide how best to ensure the poorest children do not go hungry during holidays and specifically says that this may or may not involve blanket vouchers for children receiving free school meals.

In other words:

Sandwell had discretion.

That doesn't mean blanket vouchers were necessarily the best option.

But if Cabinet chooses a different system, I would expect to see the evidence.

How many children previously received the vouchers?

What did that cost?

How many of those families are expected to qualify under the replacement scheme?

How many are expected to apply?

How many may never apply?

What assessment was made of the effect on food insecurity?

What alternatives were properly costed?

Those numbers are conspicuous by their absence from the Cabinet report.

You cannot meaningfully compare two options if nobody tells you what one of them actually costs or how many people it affects.

RED FLAG THREE: Automatic Support Has Become “Tell Us About Your Crisis”

Under the new scheme, people generally have to apply.

And that means demonstrating financial hardship.

The policy can require proof of identity, address and benefits, evidence of the crisis and a month's bank statement.

Applicants can also be asked about income, savings, expenditure and exactly what has happened to cause the crisis.

Again, targeted support isn't inherently wrong.

Indeed, the new national fund is deliberately more needs-based.

But there is a difference between:

“Your child qualifies, here is some holiday food support.”

and:

“Please apply, explain your crisis, provide evidence and show us your bank statement.”

Some people will do it.

Some people won't.

Some people will not know the scheme exists.

Some will struggle digitally.

Some will be embarrassed.

Some won't realise they qualify.

And some of the people least able to navigate bureaucracy are precisely the people this fund is supposedly designed to help.

That needs monitoring from day one.

RED FLAG FOUR: A Crisis That Can Apparently Wait Up To 14 Days

Government guidance says councils should communicate expected processing times and should aim to provide payments for urgent needs within 48 hours of a completed application. It also tells councils to consider arrangements for people needing help outside normal working hours.

Sandwell's policy merely says applicants will be notified:

“as soon as reasonably practicable.”

Meanwhile, Sandwell's current public Crisis Payment webpage says applications may take up to 14 days, although it says they are usually processed more quickly.

Fourteen days.

For a crisis payment.

If somebody has no food, no electricity, has suddenly lost their income or has fled domestic abuse, two weeks is a very long crisis.

So members should ask:

What is the target for genuinely urgent applications?

How many are processed within 48 hours?

What happens at weekends?

What happens out of hours?

Is emergency same-day support available?

Simple questions.

RED FLAG FIVE: “We'll Put It On The Website”

The Council's Crisis Payments Policy actually has an entire section entitled:

Publicity.

Sounds promising.

Its substance is basically that the scheme will be publicised on the Council's website.

Unfortunately, Government guidance goes rather further.

It requires councils to provide both a website and a non-digital offer, and specifically expects schemes to be promoted through different channels rather than merely online. It gives examples including community and family hubs and GP surgeries.

So where's Sandwell's proper communications plan?

Libraries?

Schools?

Family hubs?

GP surgeries?

Food banks?

Community centres?

Housing offices?

Citizens Advice?

Voluntary organisations?

Printed information?

People who aren't on Facebook?

People who haven't got MySandwell?

People who haven't got broadband?

You cannot target help at people experiencing poverty and then assume they'll all stumble across the correct Council webpage.

RED FLAG SIX: You Need To Be Liable For Council Tax?

Another part of the eligibility rules caught my eye.

The Sandwell policy says an applicant should:

- be aged 18 or over;

- live in Sandwell;

- be liable for Council Tax;

- be responsible for household costs;

- and be experiencing financial hardship or crisis.

The Government gives councils significant discretion over local eligibility, so I am not saying this condition is necessarily prohibited.

But I'd like it explained.

What happens to somebody sofa-surfing?

Someone fleeing domestic abuse?

Someone temporarily staying with family?

Someone living in a household where another person is the Council Tax liable person?

Someone moving out of homelessness?

Someone in genuine crisis without their name appearing on a Council Tax bill?

Government guidance itself recognises that crisis needs can look very different for disabled people, homeless people, carers, care leavers and families with children.

Again:

This is exactly what equality analysis should test.

RED FLAG SEVEN: £2 Million Worth Of Pilots – Details To Follow

This could get very interesting.

Cabinet agreed £2 million for new “resilience pilot projects”.

These could cover food security, healthy living, financial resilience, employment, skills and similar interventions.

But the actual projects weren't approved by Cabinet.

Instead senior officers, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, have delegated authority to determine what the pilots will be.

Two million pounds represents more than a quarter of this year's entire Fund.

So eventually I want to see:

Project

Organisation receiving money

Amount

Procurement or grant process

Why they were selected

Intended beneficiaries

Geographical coverage

Targets

Outcomes

Evaluation

What happened when it didn't work

“Pilot project” must not become local-government shorthand for:

«Here's some money. We'll discover what happened later.»

RED FLAG EIGHT: And Future Years Are Delegated Too

This one deserves much more attention.

Cabinet also delegated authority to senior officers, in consultation with the Cabinet Member, to formulate and agree the expenditure plans for:

2027/28

and:

2028/29.

They can also make in-year changes to the 2026/27 programme.

If funding remains around £7.6m per year, the next two years represent roughly another:

£15 MILLION.

I appreciate why operational flexibility is necessary.

But I would still expect annual expenditure plans involving sums of this magnitude to come back into public view.

Preferably Cabinet.

Certainly scrutiny.

This money belongs to the public.

“Delegated authority” shouldn't mean “see you again in 2029”.

RED FLAG NINE: Predictive Data, Poverty And Algorithms

There's another part of the report that deserves a whole article of its own.

Sandwell intends to introduce an advanced data analytics platform to help identify households at risk of poverty, homelessness, debt and other financial vulnerability.

There is a very positive side to this.

Instead of waiting for somebody to fall into complete financial disaster before helping them, the Council could intervene sooner.

Government guidance actually encourages councils to use available data proactively to identify vulnerable people.

Fine.

But if Sandwell is going to start using predictive analytics involving potentially sensitive information about vulnerable residents, I want to know:

What data?

Whose data?

How is it combined?

Who has access?

How accurate is it?

Is there automated decision-making?

How is algorithmic bias prevented?

Can residents see or challenge incorrect information?

Has a Data Protection Impact Assessment been completed?

How long is information retained?

Technology can improve services.

It can also produce very sophisticated mistakes at enormous speed.

AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE MODERNGOV MYSTERY...

The Cabinet decision reproduced inside the scrutiny papers describes the Crisis and Resilience Fund decision as:

56/26

But the formal Notice of Call-In describes the decision being challenged as:

60/26.

Presumably one of them is simply wrong.

I don't suggest the republic will collapse over a numbering error.

But if you're formally calling in a Cabinet decision, identifying the correct Cabinet decision number does seem a fairly reasonable starting point.

There is also duplicate section numbering in the adopted Crisis Payments Policy, with two different sections labelled 3.3.

Again, minor.

But we're discussing a policy administering millions of pounds.

Maybe one final proofread wouldn't have hurt.

There Is Actually Some Good News Here

Yes, you read that correctly.

This is precisely why scrutiny exists.

Councillors have used the constitutional call-in mechanism.

The decision has been paused for scrutiny.

A public meeting has been arranged.

The Cabinet report, policy, decision and full call-in notice are all inside the public pack.

That is democratic scrutiny functioning.

The next test is whether the meeting becomes genuine examination or simply:

«Officer gives answer.

Member thanks officer.

Everyone notes report.

Tea.»

Scrutiny members have the opportunity to demand evidence.

They should use it.

Meanwhile... The Rest Of The Paper Mountain Continues To Grow

And this isn't happening in isolation.

Over 11 and 12 August Sandwell also published a substantial collection of new 2026/27 scrutiny work-programme items.

Budget and Corporate Scrutiny now has subjects including:

- the 2027/28 budget;

- procurement and contract management;

- digital transformation;

- workforce strategy;

- corporate performance;

- customer feedback;

- WMCA accountability;

- and monitoring of the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge.

Safer Neighbourhoods now has:

- Housing Improvement and Transformation;

- a specific repairs and maintenance review;

- housing complaint handling;

- ASB performance;

- neighbourhood working;

- green spaces;

- and the Play Area Strategy.

Health and Adult Social Care has:

- CQC's Adult Social Care findings;

- maternity and neonatal services;

- Section 117 mental-health aftercare;

- and Black Country Healthcare.

That is a lot of serious business.

Good.

Put difficult subjects on the agenda.

Then ask difficult questions.

This Is Why I Started Watching The Forward Plan

My original point remains.

Residents normally see the political press release at the end of the process.

“Council launches...”

“Cabinet approves...”

“Exciting new...”

“Transformational...”

“Investment...”

Lovely.

But before the press release comes the report.

Before the report comes the Forward Plan.

And somewhere in those documents are the risks, costs, delegated authorities, alternative options and things somebody has decided not to do.

That's where the interesting stuff is.

So What Should Scrutiny Demand On 20 August?

At the very least I'd want answers to these:

Where was the equality evidence when Cabinet made its decision?

How many children and families lost automatic holiday voucher support?

What would continuing those vouchers have cost?

How many Crisis Payment applications are expected?

What percentage will be processed within 48 hours?

What is the full offline application route?

How will the scheme be publicised away from the internet?

Why is Council Tax liability part of the eligibility test?

What controls apply to the £2m pilot programme?

Will the 2027/28 and 2028/29 spending plans come back for public scrutiny?

What governance surrounds the predictive-data system?

And is the Cabinet decision 56/26 or 60/26?

None of those questions require torches, pitchforks or wild conspiracy theories.

They merely require:

scrutiny.

Funny old thing.

I'll Keep Updating This

The September paper trail has now started arriving rather earlier than September.

And I'll continue updating this as the reports, scrutiny programmes, decisions and minutes appear.

Sometimes the paperwork will reveal a genuine problem.

Sometimes councillors will receive a perfectly satisfactory explanation.

Either outcome is useful.

But one thing should change.

We should stop finding out what Sandwell Council has done after it has already done it.

The documents are there.

The Forward Plan gives warning.

The scrutiny work programmes tell us where the questions should be asked.

So let's read them.

Preferably before somebody signs off the next £20 million.

Because, judging by the rate Modern.Gov is currently sending emails...

I may soon need another filing cabinet.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #CouncilScrutiny #CrisisAndResilienceFund #CostOfLiving #FreeSchoolMeals #PublicMoney #CouncilFinances #Governance #Accountability #Transparency #LocalGovernment #SandwellPolitics #WestMidlands #ForwardPlan #EqualityImpact #DigitalTransformation #WatchThePapers

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

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

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

Free parking!

Free market stalls!

Wednesbury and Great Bridge are saved!

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

Except, of course, they’re not saved.

Not even close.

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

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

In fact, I hope it works.

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

Because it doesn’t.

It’s a sticking plaster.

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

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

Wednesbury has already had plenty of attention.

Millions have been spent.

Paving.

Lighting.

Trees.

Seating.

Heritage works.

Shopfront schemes.

Public realm.

And, of course, the market was moved.

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

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

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

Markets need concentration.

Stalls need to be together.

People need to be able to wander naturally between them.

You need bustle.

You need traders.

You need shoppers.

You need something worth buying.

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

It may look prettier.

But does it actually work as a market?

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

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

The Council has already evaluated some of the Wednesbury improvements.

And people thought the town centre looked better afterwards.

Good.

Credit where it’s due.

But here comes the slightly inconvenient bit.

How often people actually visited barely changed.

Oops.

So apparently people looked at the improvements and thought:

“That looks much nicer.”

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

That matters.

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

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

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

What happened to the shops?

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

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

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

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

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

The issue is balance.

A town centre needs reasons to wander around.

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

If I collect a takeaway, I collect a takeaway.

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

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

Browse.

Shop.

Eat.

Have a coffee.

Use the market.

Stay awhile.

Spend money.

That ecosystem has been weakening.

Then there’s Wednesbury Market...

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

Sounds dramatic.

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

Six quid.

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

Maybe it will encourage a few new traders.

I genuinely hope it does.

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

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

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

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

Then we arrive at Great Bridge...

Great Bridge is almost comic in a different way.

Because Great Bridge doesn't actually lack shoppers.

There are thousands of them.

Asda is there.

The retail park is there.

Major retailers are there.

Food outlets are there.

Cars pour in and out.

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

Over there somewhere.

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

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

Brilliant.

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

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

Perhaps somebody could organise a working group.

Followed by a consultation.

Followed by a strategy.

Followed by a glossy PDF.

Then perhaps in 2031 someone could suggest a sign.

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

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

Retail services are disproportionately high.

Hairdressers make up a substantial number of those businesses.

Takeaways make up a large chunk of the leisure offer.

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

Once again — individual businesses are not the villain here.

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

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

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

Great Bridge Market: yours for the bargain price of nothing

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

Now they’ll be free.

Again, good luck to it.

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

Sherlock Holmes can stand down.

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

A market needs traders.

Traders need customers.

Customers need reasons to come.

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

What about parking?

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

Parking charges can irritate people.

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

So try it.

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

Free parking doesn't improve tired shopfronts.

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

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

It doesn't magically populate a market.

It doesn't repair years of retail decline.

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

Show us the numbers

This is where I become particularly suspicious.

Before the trial starts, Sandwell should publish the baseline.

How many stalls are currently occupied?

How many traders are there?

How much money are both markets losing?

What is the current footfall?

How many people use the car parks?

How much parking income will be lost?

How much market income will be lost?

What are the current vacancy rates?

And, most importantly:

What exactly constitutes success?

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

That tells us very little.

Did shop trade increase?

Did the markets retain new traders?

Did more businesses open?

Did vacancies fall?

Did people stay longer?

Did footfall increase?

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

Did Wednesbury Market actually become a market again?

Those are the tests.

So what SHOULD Sandwell be doing?

Wednesbury needs a proper commercial review of its market.

Not another cosmetic exercise.

Is it in the right place?

Is the layout right?

What do former traders say?

What businesses are missing from the town?

How do we attract them?

How do we use vacant units?

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

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

Great Bridge needs something even more obvious.

Connect the bloody town centre to the retail park.

Physically.

Visually.

Commercially.

Make it easy and attractive to walk between them.

Improve the shopfronts.

Recruit better independents.

Sort the market.

Create reasons to cross over from Asda.

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

Give the experiment a chance — but spare us the fanfare

I hope the free parking works.

I hope the free stalls attract traders.

I hope both town centres improve.

Seriously.

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

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

The really interesting question isn't:

“Will free parking help?”

Of course it might.

The interesting question is:

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

That's the story.

And I'll keep following it.

And this is only the beginning...

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

I also intend to widen the exercise.

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

Shop by shop.

Street by street.

Vacancies.

Takeaways.

Barbers.

Vape shops.

Bookmakers.

Independents.

Markets.

Public realm.

Parking.

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

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

Perhaps we should just go and look at them.

More to come.

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

Sandwell Planning Watch: Care Homes, Gaming Centres, Masts, Demolitions and the Weekly List of Doom

Sandwell Planning Watch: Care Homes, Gaming Centres, Masts, Demolitions and the Weekly List of Doom

Sandwell’s latest weekly planning list has landed, and once again it is not exactly bedtime reading unless you enjoy a nice calming scroll through children’s residential care homes, adult gaming centres, telecoms masts, school demolitions, extract flues, condition discharges and the occasional “nothing to see here” council-linked application.

In other words, just another week in the magical kingdom of Sandwell planning.

This is not about objecting to everything. It is not about shouting “no” at every extension, classroom, school improvement, home adaptation or business trying to survive. Some applications are routine. Some may be positive. Some may be perfectly reasonable.

But buried inside these weekly lists are the applications that change neighbourhoods. Not with a brass band and a public meeting, obviously. This is Sandwell. They arrive quietly, in a document most residents will never see, written in planning-speak, with just enough technical fog to make normal people’s eyes glaze over.

And that is exactly why we need to keep watching.

This week’s headline: more children’s residential care applications

The most obvious red flag this week is the continuing pattern of ordinary homes being proposed for use as residential care homes for children.

This week we have:

DC/26/71893 — 20 Bradley Street, Tipton

A proposed change of use from dwellinghouse to a residential home for up to three children.

DC/26/71906 — 169 Hamstead Road, Great Barr

A proposed change of use of a dwellinghouse to a residential care home for up to two children — and this one is by way of a Lawful Development Certificate.

Now let us be very clear, before the usual council fog machine warms up.

This is not about being against children.

This is not about saying young people in care do not need homes.

They absolutely do.

The issue is whether these homes are being properly assessed, properly located, properly staffed, properly conditioned and properly explained to residents.

Because a care home is not simply “a normal house with a different label slapped on the door”. Depending on the facts, it can involve staff, shift changes, overnight cover, managers, social workers, professional visits, parking demand, safeguarding issues and a completely different operational pattern from an ordinary family home.

And when these applications keep appearing across the borough, councillors should not be treating them as isolated little dots on a map. They should be asking: how many are there, where are they, who runs them, what is the staffing model, what are the conditions, and is there a concentration problem?

At the moment, the pattern is getting too obvious to ignore.

The Lawful Development Certificate route: planning without the public spotlight

One of the biggest concerns is the use of Lawful Development Certificates.

An LDC is not a normal planning application. It is a technical decision about whether something is lawful. That means residents may not get the same level of consultation, and the council may say it cannot consider the usual planning merits in the same way.

Very convenient.

This year we have seen LDCs involving HMOs, care uses, residential conversions, caravans, annexes, flats and other changes. Some may be perfectly legitimate. But where the change affects how a property is actually used, residents are entitled to feel uneasy when the matter disappears into a technical process.

This week, the Hamstead Road children’s home proposal is an LDC. Last week we saw more C2 care-home LDCs. Before that, we have seen HMOs and other conversions coming through similar routes.

So here is the question for Sandwell Council:

Are you properly testing the real-world use, or are you just reading the label on the tin?

Because residents live with the reality, not the label.

West Bromwich High Street: from betting shop to Adult Gaming Centre

Then we have DC/26/71862 — 238 Duchess Parade, West Bromwich High Street.

The proposal is to change a betting shop into an Adult Gaming Centre with a new shopfront.

Lovely. Just what every struggling High Street needs. Because nothing says “regeneration” quite like more gambling frontage.

West Bromwich High Street needs investment, pride, proper shops, safety, activity, families, decent public realm, cleaner streets and reasons for people to come in and stay.

What it does not need is to slide further into a patchwork of betting shops, gaming centres, empty units, takeaways, shutters and “this will do” planning.

This application should be looked at properly. Councillors should ask about gambling harm, clustering, opening hours, shopfront impact, vulnerable users, community safety and whether this supports the town centre vision — assuming, of course, there is one and it is not currently buried under a pile of glossy regeneration buzzwords.

Cradley Heath Community Centre: demolition by weekly list

Another major item is PD/26/03294 — Cradley Heath Community Centre and adjacent site, 120A Reddal Hill Road.

The proposal is for demolition of the former community centre and clearance of derelict former garages.

Now, the building may be derelict. The garages may be unsafe. Demolition may be justified. But this is a former community centre. It is a public/community asset issue. It should not slip past residents as a bland technical line in a weekly list.

Where is the options appraisal?

What is the future use of the cleared site?

Was community use considered?

Is this being prepared for disposal?

Is there a redevelopment plan waiting in the wings?

Who made the decision?

Were ward councillors briefed?

Will residents get any say?

If a community building is being erased from the map, residents deserve more than a shrug and a planning reference.

George Betts Primary Academy: big scheme, big questions

There is also a major application at George Betts Primary Academy in Smethwick.

The proposal includes demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new school building, car parking, recreational facilities, landscaping, amenity areas, lighting, plant and associated works.

This may be good news. It may be much-needed investment. But major school development brings major practical questions.

Construction traffic.

Pupil safety.

Parent drop-off.

Staff parking.

Lighting.

Noise from plant.

Drainage.

Loss or replacement of play space.

Safeguarding during works.

Impact on neighbours.

A school improvement scheme still needs scrutiny. “It’s for a school” should not mean “don’t ask questions”. It should mean “ask the right questions early”.

Another telecoms mast. Because apparently Sandwell needed more skyline furniture.

This week’s mast entry is PD/26/03300 — a 20m monopole at the corner of Bleak Street and Stony Lane, Smethwick.

This follows the recent parade of telecoms applications: 20m, 22.5m, 25m and even 30m structures popping up in weekly lists like metal mushrooms after rain.

Nobody sensible is saying Sandwell does not need decent mobile coverage. We all use phones. We all need digital infrastructure.

But there has to be a borough-wide view.

Where are all these masts going?

What alternatives were considered?

Can existing infrastructure be shared?

What about visual impact?

What about cabinets cluttering footways?

What about nearby homes, schools, businesses and junctions?

Who is looking at the cumulative picture?

At the moment, it feels like each mast is being treated as if it arrived alone on a parachute.

Extract flues, MOT centres and the smell of “retention”

This week also includes food/extract issues:

Punjabi Sweets and Curry House, Smethwick — retention of extract flue and windows.

30A High Street, Cradley Heath — installation of extract duct.

163 Great Bridge Street — vehicle repair shop to MOT centre.

Again, these may be acceptable. Businesses need to trade. High streets need activity. But extract flues can mean odour, noise, visual clutter and late-night disturbance. MOT centres can mean vehicle movements, noise, waiting vehicles and parking pressure.

The magic word here is “retention”. Whenever something is already there and then the application comes in afterwards, residents are entitled to ask whether enforcement has been involved and whether Sandwell is slowly becoming a “do it first, tidy the paperwork later” borough.

Condition discharges: where the real detail hides

This week also contains several discharge of condition applications, including a large package at land adjacent 39 Wake Green Road, Tipton, covering conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14.

That is not a small tick-box exercise. That is a whole bundle of practical detail.

Conditions can cover drainage, contamination, highways, materials, landscaping, construction management, noise, lighting, parking, waste and ecology.

In other words, the stuff residents actually care about.

Planning permission is the headline. Conditions are the small print. And as everyone knows, the small print is where the pain usually lives.

Councillors should be asking for plain-English condition trackers. Not residents being told to go wandering through the planning portal like they are searching for the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Council-linked applications: the weekly Roway Lane cameo

Once again, we see a council-linked type application, this time PD/26/03303 — 22 Avon Grove, with Roway Lane and Sandwell Council House appearing in the applicant/agent details.

This may well be a perfectly legitimate home adaptation or council-supported improvement. Good. People need adaptations and support.

But the pattern needs logging.

Where Sandwell Council, Roway Lane, the Home Improvement Agency, Urban Design or council officers appear as applicant, agent, landowner, promoter or funder, there should be a simple weekly register.

Transparency protects everybody. Residents. Councillors. Officers. The council itself.

And now the bigger picture: what we have seen so far this year

This week’s list is only one chapter in a bigger book.

Since the start of the year, from the applications and planning documents we have reviewed, a pattern has emerged.

Not one single giant scandal. Not one big red button marked “destroy neighbourhood character here”.

Instead, Sandwell is being changed by drip-feed.

One HMO.

One care home.

One Lawful Development Certificate.

One retrospective application.

One condition discharge.

One mast.

One annexe.

One studio flat.

One public asset demolition.

One “minor” amendment.

One delegated decision.

And then another. And another. And another.

That is how local planning pressure works.

HMOs: still the big resident-confidence issue

We have seen HMO applications and HMO expansion concerns across the borough.

There have been applications involving Beakes Road, Queens Road, Cheshire Road, Walsall Street, High Street Smethwick and others.

The themes are familiar:

parking pressure;

bins;

noise;

overcrowding;

loss of family homes;

repeat applications after refusal;

applications returning with minor tweaks;

residents having to fight the same battle again and again.

The Cheshire Road case is especially concerning because it followed previous refusals. That is the planning version of “computer says no”, followed by “try again next week”.

Residents are not wrong to feel worn down.

Sandwell needs a live HMO tracker by ward, by street, by application status, by licensing status and by enforcement history.

Planning and licensing must talk to each other. Otherwise, the council will keep doing that familiar municipal dance where one department says “not us” and another department says “try the website”.

Children’s homes and C2 care uses: the pattern is now impossible to ignore

We have now seen repeated C2 children’s home and care-use applications across Sandwell.

Earlier this year there were cases involving The Roundhouse, Gorsty Hill Road, Lemox Road, Hollies Drive, Francis Ward Close, Ripon Drive, Wheatsheaf Road, Defford Drive, Bradley Street and Hamstead Road.

Some are full planning applications. Some are LDCs. Some involve two children. Some three. Some four. Some involve wider care uses.

Again, this is not about saying no to care. It is about saying yes to proper scrutiny.

Where are they?

Who runs them?

How many are approved?

How many are pending?

How many are refused?

How many are LDCs?

How many are close to each other?

What conditions control them?

Are staff numbers limited?

Are visitors managed?

Is parking assessed?

Are safeguarding, Children’s Services, police and Ofsted-related issues at least being joined up?

This needs a borough-wide C2 / children’s homes tracker. Not a spreadsheet hidden in a digital cupboard. A usable councillor tool.

Adult care and supported living: add it to the tracker too

We have also seen adult care and supported living issues, including Cross Lane in Great Barr, involving conversion of an existing 8-bedroom property into a 4-bed residential care home for adults, and Bromford Lane supported living.

These need to be tracked alongside children’s homes and HMOs.

Why? Because from a street-level perspective, residents see managed residential uses, staffing, parking, visitors, shift changes and operational activity. The label may differ, but the planning impact can overlap.

A joined-up council would map these uses together.

So, naturally, we wait.

Retrospective applications and retention: build first, ask later?

Another repeated theme is retention and retrospective development.

We have seen retention of commercial uses, retention of care use, retention of outbuildings, retention of external wall insulation, retention of extract flues, and even the major recent Brunswick Apartments Lawful Development Certificate for retention of 21 self-contained apartments.

Some retrospective applications are innocent. Mistakes happen.

But too many create a culture where the message becomes:

Build it, use it, convert it, extend it — then ask nicely later.

That is not how planning confidence is built.

Reform councillors should ask for a 2026 retrospective and retention report: how many applications, which wards, what types, how many followed complaints, how many were granted, how many refused, and what enforcement action followed.

Open space and public land: watch the quiet ones

We have also seen pressure on open space and public/community sites.

Brook Road Open Space.

Brandhall.

Cradley Heath Community Centre.

School estates.

Garage courts.

Infill plots.

Side land.

Backland development.

These are exactly the sorts of places that can be quietly reclassified from “community space” or “awkward leftover land” into “development opportunity”.

Residents usually find out once the decision machine is already moving.

If the word “open space”, “community centre”, “former garages”, “school site” or “council land” appears in a planning list, councillors should be awake immediately.

Not because every scheme is bad. But because these are public-interest sites, and public-interest sites deserve public-interest scrutiny.

Telecoms, digital signs and street clutter

Across recent lists we have seen 20m masts, 22.5m masts, 25m masts, a 30m mast, BT hubs, digital advertising screens, illuminated displays and full-motion adverts.

Welcome to the modern streetscape: part pavement, part telecoms compound, part digital billboard, part obstacle course.

Again, nobody is against technology. But Sandwell needs a strategy before the borough is dotted with poles, cabinets and glowing screens like a budget version of Times Square with worse paving.

Where is the cumulative map?

Where is the street clutter policy?

Where is the public realm assessment?

Where is the check on disabled access and footway widths?

Where is the conversation about driver distraction?

At the moment, it all feels very “application by application”, which is council-speak for “we may not notice the pattern until it is too late”.

Condition discharges: the silent stage

Condition discharges have been appearing repeatedly.

Perryfields.

Tipton Conservative Club.

Wake Green Road.

Kings Hill.

Phoenix Collegiate.

Manchester Stores.

Danks Way.

Biffa.

The Hayes.

Residents often focus on the original planning application. Understandably. That is where the headline fight happens.

But the conditions are where the real detail is often signed off.

Drainage.

Contamination.

Construction traffic.

Dust.

Noise.

Materials.

Landscaping.

Lighting.

Parking.

Boundary treatments.

Working hours.

If councillors only watch the original approval and ignore the conditions, they are leaving the back door open.

So what should Reform councillors do?

Reform now controls Sandwell Council.

Yes, many of these planning pipelines may have been inherited. Fair enough.

But the response is not inherited. The response belongs to the current administration.

Residents need more than slogans about change. They need systems that actually change how planning is watched.

Here is the practical shopping list:

A live HMO tracker.

A live C2 children’s homes and care-use tracker.

An adult care and supported living tracker.

A telecoms mast and digital advertising map.

A retrospective and retention application report.

A condition discharge tracker in plain English.

A council-linked application register.

An open space and public asset planning tracker.

A monthly councillor briefing by ward.

A clear route for residents to know what is happening before the decision is already made.

This is not rocket science. It is basic scrutiny.

And if residents can spot the pattern from weekly lists, councillors certainly should be able to.

Final thought

Sandwell’s planning lists are not just lists.

They are advance warning systems.

This week’s list warns us about children’s residential care applications, an Adult Gaming Centre, a former community centre demolition, a major school redevelopment, another telecoms mast, extract flues, condition discharges and council-linked applications.

The cumulative picture warns us about something bigger: Sandwell’s neighbourhoods are being changed one technical decision at a time.

The council may call them applications.

Residents call them the future of their streets.

And if councillors do not read the small print, residents will be left reading the consequences.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #Planning #HMOs #ChildrensHomes #C2Care #WestBromwich #Tipton #Smethwick #CradleyHeath #GreatBarr #PlanningWatch #LocalDemocracy #ResidentVoice #ReformCouncil #WeeklyListOfDoom

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

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

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

So I'm trying something different.

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

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

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

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

This isn't an accusation that something is wrong.

It is something far more dangerous in Sandwell:

asking questions before the decision is made.

First up – how are the finances looking?

One of the big documents coming forward is the:

Q1 Budget Monitoring Report 2026/27

This is classed as a Key Decision.

Budget monitoring reports can appear mind-numbingly dull.

Forecast.

Variance.

Reprofiling.

Reserves.

Capital programme.

Another spreadsheet.

Another cup of tea.

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

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

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

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

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

Has the position improved?

Have new overspends appeared?

Are savings actually being delivered?

How much money is being taken from reserves?

And perhaps one of my favourites:

How much of the capital programme has actually been delivered?

Because there is a difference between:

"We have allocated £20 million to something"

and

"We actually built the thing."

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

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

In ordinary English it frequently means:

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

Let's see what September brings.

Treasury Management Outturn 2025/26

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

Don't switch off.

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

It isn't.

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

I want to see:

- total borrowing;

- cost of borrowing;

- investment returns;

- compliance with prudential indicators;

- changes in debt;

- borrowing connected with the capital programme;

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

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

If borrowing has increased, explain why.

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

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

Housing Compliance Policies

Now this one immediately gets my attention.

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

And there is some important history here.

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

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

The improvement programme itself specifically included:

reviewing compliance policies and procedures;

improving systems and data;

external and internal assurance;

staff competence;

and better controls to identify non-compliance risks.

So this isn't administrative housekeeping.

It goes directly to the question:

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

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

I also want to know:

What remains outstanding?

What is still red or amber?

Are statutory inspections genuinely up to date?

Have historical gaps been completely resolved?

What does external assurance say?

And crucially:

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

There is an important difference.

Community Safety Strategy 2026–2030

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

This should be interesting.

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

They experience:

antisocial behaviour;

drug dealing;

illegal motorcycles;

shoplifting;

town-centre disorder;

fly-tipping;

criminal damage;

street drinking;

car crime;

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

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

I want measurable outcomes.

What are the baseline figures?

What are the targets?

Who is responsible for delivering them?

Where are the hotspots?

What happens when targets aren't met?

How will councillors see ward-level performance?

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

And perhaps most importantly:

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

Because publishing another strategy is easy.

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

West Midlands Regional Care Cooperative

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

It too is designated a Key Decision.

This one deserves careful reading when the report arrives.

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

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

who controls the money;

who carries the financial risk;

what Sandwell's liabilities are;

what happens if another partner doesn't deliver;

how performance is monitored;

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

Regional partnerships can achieve things individual councils cannot.

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

Let's see the report.

Funeral Services Contract

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

Again, this may prove completely straightforward.

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

I'd want to know:

what is being procured;

the contract value and length;

whether there are extension provisions;

how quality will be measured;

whether prices or charges to residents could be affected;

what previous contract performance has been like;

and what safeguards exist should the contractor fail.

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

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

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

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

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

Now let's be very clear.

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

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

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

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

the amount being written off;

why the debt became irrecoverable;

how old it is;

what recovery action was undertaken;

whether mistakes contributed;

whether officers followed the correct debt-recovery procedures;

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

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

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

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

And that is precisely why questions matter.

Now Comes My Bigger Concern – Scrutiny

This is where the diary becomes interesting.

Cabinet is scheduled to meet on:

Wednesday 9 September 2026.

Budget and Corporate Scrutiny meets on:

Thursday 10 September.

Children's Services and Education Scrutiny meets:

Monday 14 September.

Safer Neighbourhoods and Active Communities Scrutiny meets:

Thursday 17 September.

See the potential problem?

Most of the main scrutiny meetings take place after Cabinet.

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

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

But it does reinforce something I have raised previously.

Scrutiny is most useful BEFORE a decision.

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

That is exactly what should happen now.

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

That's not scrutiny.

That's a post-match discussion.

The Forward Plan Should Be An Alarm Bell

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

Not because every item represents a scandal.

Most won't.

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

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

Before decisions.

Before contracts.

Before millions are committed.

Before the press release announcing that everything is marvellous.

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

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

Good scrutiny helps stop things going wrong.

And good councillors shouldn't be frightened of it.

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

What I'll Be Watching For

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

Q1 FINANCES

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

TREASURY MANAGEMENT

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

HOUSING COMPLIANCE

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Are there measurable targets rather than another collection of ambitions?

REGIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES FUNDING

Who carries the money, risk and accountability?

FUNERAL SERVICES

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

LEGACY ARREARS

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

And underneath all of them:

Who scrutinised it before Cabinet?

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

A Different Way Of Watching Sandwell

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

Sometimes I'll find a genuine red flag.

Sometimes the report will answer the questions perfectly adequately.

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

I'll report that too.

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

The information is there.

The trick is knowing where to look.

So consider this the advance warning.

September could be interesting.

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

Lots and lots of appendices.

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

Clean Air Without the Net Zero Lecture: A Sensible Way Forward for Sandwell

I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a supporter of costly carbon policies, arbitrary net-zero deadlines or politicians attempting to micromanage how ordinary people travel, heat their homes and live their lives.

That does not mean I want people breathing polluted air.

It does not mean I want every tree chopped down, every hedge removed and Sandwell converted into one enormous concrete traffic island.

There is an important difference between carbon dioxide and pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5.

One has become the centre of an enormous political and financial industry.

The others can directly affect the air people breathe, particularly around busy roads, motorways, industrial areas, schools and housing.

Sandwell should be capable of dealing with genuine local pollution without every conversation turning into another lecture about net zero.

Start with the pollution that affects people here

Sandwell has major roads, motorways, industrial sites, distribution centres and heavily congested junctions.

Residents living close to these locations are entitled to know what they are breathing.

That means proper monitoring of:

• nitrogen dioxide;
• PM2.5;
• industrial emissions;
• construction dust;
• smoke from burning;
• brake and tyre particles;
• pollution caused by stationary and stop-start traffic.

The results should be published clearly and regularly.

Not buried halfway through a report containing 14 appendices, six maps nobody can read and a foreword from a cabinet member congratulating themselves for commissioning it.

Residents should be able to look at a simple public map and see where pollution is being recorded, whether it is rising or falling and what action is being taken.

That would be useful.

What is happening with the M5 speed limit?

For several years, motorists have travelled through parts of the M5 around Oldbury under a permanent 60 mph restriction said to be required for air quality.

Many residents will have seen the signs.

What far fewer residents will have seen is clear, accessible evidence explaining:

• what pollution levels were before the restriction;
• what they became afterwards;
• how much of any reduction was caused by the lower speed;
• how much was caused by newer and cleaner vehicles;
• whether the restriction is still necessary;
• when the normal national speed limit will return.

We are now told that pollution at the trial locations has fallen below the relevant threshold and that the Oldbury limit is awaiting the legal process required for its removal.

That raises a fairly obvious question.

Why is it still there?

If the original justification no longer applies, the restriction should be removed and the national motorway speed limit restored.

Motorists should not be expected to live forever under a temporary environmental experiment simply because removing a road sign appears to require more paperwork than building the motorway did in the first place.

National Highways should publish the current data, explain the delay and give a clear date for the change.

Sandwell Council cannot itself alter the motorway speed limit, but it can certainly start asking questions on behalf of residents.

That would make a refreshing change from simply repeating whatever National Highways has said.

Lower speeds do not automatically mean cleaner air

There seems to be an assumption in some parts of local government that reducing a speed limit must automatically improve air quality.

It is not that simple.

Vehicles behave differently depending on their engine, gear, fuel, weight, acceleration and the road conditions.

A vehicle moving smoothly may produce less local pollution than one repeatedly braking, crawling, idling and accelerating away from badly timed traffic lights.

Anyone who has sat in a queue on Birmingham Road, Oldbury Ringway or one of Sandwell’s numerous congested junctions will understand the point.

A line of stationary vehicles with engines running is not an environmental triumph merely because everybody is travelling below 20 mph.

The important issue is traffic flow.

Sandwell should examine:

• traffic-light sequencing;
• unnecessary bottlenecks;
• roadworks management;
• badly positioned junctions;
• illegal and obstructive parking;
• poor access arrangements at new developments;
• traffic-calming schemes that cause continual braking and acceleration.

A council genuinely interested in clean air should want necessary traffic moving safely and smoothly.

Making every journey slower, more frustrating and more congested is not a transport policy.

It is an endurance test.

The 20 mph question

Twenty-mile-per-hour limits have an important role.

They are entirely appropriate outside many schools, in places with high pedestrian activity, at genuine collision blackspots and on narrow residential roads where the risks justify them.

But Sandwell now has a growing patchwork of 20 mph areas, and residents are entitled to ask whether every one of them remains necessary.

Some roads appear to have been reduced simply because lowering speed limits became the policy fashion of the moment.

A proper review should examine each area separately.

The council should publish:

• collision records;
• recorded vehicle speeds;
• pedestrian numbers;
• school and community facilities;
• road layout and visibility;
• police advice;
• evidence of whether the restriction has worked.

Where a permanent 20 mph limit is justified, retain it.

Where the danger exists mainly at school opening and closing times, consider a variable school-time limit.

Where there is no convincing safety case and the road previously operated safely at 30 mph, restore the former limit.

That is not an attack on road safety.

It is how public confidence in road safety is maintained.

When restrictions are placed everywhere, including where they make little visible sense, drivers are less likely to respect them where they really matter.

Trees, shrubs and green corridors

Sandwell also needs a much more ambitious programme of tree, hedge and shrub planting.

Not simply tiny saplings planted beside a cabinet member in time for a photograph, then left to die during the first dry summer.

I mean a properly planned programme with maintenance, replacement and survival targets.

There are major opportunities around:

• motorway corridors;
• industrial estates;
• schools;
• housing close to main roads;
• canals and walking routes;
• parks and nature reserves;
• neglected roadside verges;
• development sites.

Trees and shrubs can provide shade, improve neighbourhoods, support wildlife, reduce surface-water runoff and create buffers between people and busy roads.

Green corridors can connect parks, waterways, open spaces and nature reserves throughout the borough.

This should include Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve and the wider network of green spaces that residents and volunteers already work hard to protect.

But once again, the programme must be practical.

The council should report how many trees survive after one year, three years and five years.

Counting a dead tree as an environmental success because it was technically planted is exactly the sort of accounting trick that gives council strategies a bad name.

Deal with all the sources

Any serious PM2.5 policy must look beyond private cars.

Pollution can also come from:

• heavy goods vehicles;
• industrial processes;
• construction dust;
• domestic burning;
• bonfires;
• wood-burning appliances;
• resuspended road dust;
• brake and tyre wear.

It is easy to impose another restriction on motorists.

It is harder to challenge a large industrial operator, enforce construction conditions or deal consistently with illegal burning.

Sandwell should do the harder work as well.

Otherwise, clean-air policy becomes just another excuse to fine, restrict and lecture the easiest people to reach.

A friendly suggestion for Reform

Reform now controls Sandwell Council and has an opportunity to produce a policy that is neither net-zero ideology nor environmental neglect.

My friendly suggestion would be to create a Sandwell Clean Air, Green Corridors and Traffic Flow Review.

It could include:

1. A formal request to National Highways for the immediate timetable to remove the M5 Oldbury 60 mph restriction.
2. A road-by-road review of 20 mph limits.
3. A boroughwide review of traffic-light timing, congestion and junction flow.
4. Clear public monitoring of NO2 and PM2.5.
5. Stronger action against industrial emissions, dust and illegal burning.
6. A major tree, shrub and green-corridor programme.
7. Annual reporting of what has actually improved.

Most importantly, the review should be led by evidence rather than political fashion.

If a speed restriction works, prove it.

If it no longer works or is no longer needed, remove it.

If a junction is causing unnecessary congestion, fix it.

If pollution is coming from industry, burning or heavy vehicles, deal with those sources.

If trees are planted, maintain them.

None of this requires Sandwell to declare a climate emergency every Thursday afternoon.

It requires the council to concentrate on clean air, healthier neighbourhoods, sensible transport and visible improvements.

A chance to get it right

There is a real opportunity here.

Sandwell does not have to choose between blanket restrictions and doing nothing.

It can protect vulnerable residents without punishing every motorist.

It can improve air quality without signing up to every carbon target placed in front of it.

It can plant trees and create green corridors without pretending that one sapling outside the Council House will reverse global weather patterns.

It can make roads safer without assuming that every road should operate at 20 mph.

Above all, it can publish the evidence and allow residents to judge whether policies are working.

That would be a genuinely different approach.

Practical, measurable and based on common sense.

Common sense, admittedly, has sometimes struggled to find a parking space at Sandwell Council.

Perhaps Reform could reserve one for it.

#Sandwell #CleanAir #PM25 #AirQuality #M5 #Oldbury #20mph #TrafficFlow #GreenCorridors #TreePlanting #ReformUK #CommonSense