BWA: THE ELECTION HAS GONE – THE QUESTIONS HAVEN’T

BWA: THE ELECTION HAS GONE – THE QUESTIONS HAVEN’T

Follow the money. Follow the power. Follow the silence. Now follow the unanswered questions.

Regular readers will remember my previous excursions into the curious world of the Bangladeshi Women’s Association Limited (BWA), the Tipton Muslim Community Centre, Jubilee Park Community Centre, and the various tentacles connecting community organisations, public money, Sandwell Council and the Sandwell Consortium.

We started by following the money.

Then we followed the power.

Then came the silence.

Well, here we are in July 2026.

The election has been and gone. Sandwell Council has changed political control. Syeda Khatun lost her Tipton Green council seat.

But here's the funny old thing...

The questions haven't lost their seats.

They are still sitting there, patiently waiting for somebody to answer them.

And some of them have now been waiting since November 2025.

THE NUMBERS HAVEN'T DISAPPEARED EITHER

Let's start with the latest BWA financial figures we have been examining.

For 2024/25:

Income – £475,924

Expenditure – £479,601

Deficit – £3,677

Total reserves – £318,788

Unrestricted reserves – £177,021

Cash at bank – £344,179

Staff costs – £276,092

And staff costs increased by around £63,000.

Now before somebody gets excited and starts shouting that having reserves is perfectly legal – yes, of course it is.

Having reserves isn't evidence of wrongdoing.

Having £344,179 sitting in the bank isn't evidence of wrongdoing either.

Paying £276,092 in staff costs isn't evidence of wrongdoing.

But when a community charity receives public and grant funding, operates community facilities and has substantial unrestricted reserves, I think the public is perfectly entitled to ask:

What's the reserves policy?

Why is that level of unrestricted money being retained?

What are the reserves earmarked for?

Why have staff costs risen substantially?

How much of those staffing costs ultimately comes from public or grant funding?

These aren't allegations.

They're called questions.

Sadly, questions seem to be an endangered species in certain parts of Sandwell.

TWO COMMUNITY CENTRES – SO WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?

BWA operates through both Tipton Muslim Community Centre and Jubilee Park Community Centre.

So I've asked another terribly complicated question:

Are separate management accounts maintained for each centre?

If they are, let's see the broad figures.

How much income does each centre generate?

How much does each cost?

Which grants relate to which centre?

What capital expenditure has taken place?

How are BWA's central costs allocated?

And what happened with historic funding associated with Jubilee Park's sporting facilities?

I don't think you need Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and Columbo sitting around the same committee table to answer that.

Either centre-level financial information exists or it doesn't.

If it exists – transparency would be welcome.

If it doesn't – how exactly are trustees monitoring the individual financial performance of two community facilities?

THEN THERE ARE THE ASSETS

This is another subject I've been banging on about.

Over the years there has been public and grant funding associated with community facilities and equipment.

So I've asked about things including:

IT equipment and IT suites
CCTV
sports equipment
courts and pitches
marquees
containers
furniture
capital improvements

Again, nobody is alleging somebody has driven off down the Birmingham New Road with an IT suite strapped to the roof of a Ford Transit.

I simply want the audit trail.

What was purchased?

Who paid for it?

Who owns it?

Where is it?

Is it still being used?

Was anything replaced?

Was anything sold, scrapped or transferred?

If so, who authorised it?

And if grant-funded equipment was replaced or disposed of, were the appropriate funder conditions followed?

That's basic asset management.

THE IT SUITE QUESTION STILL HASN'T GONE AWAY

Regular readers may remember my particular interest in expenditure concerning IT equipment.

I've previously raised concerns about the possibility of replacing or substantially spending upon an apparently functioning and already equipped IT facility.

Again:

What was purchased?

Why?

What happened to the previous equipment?

Who authorised it?

Which funding pot paid for it?

Show the paperwork and another question disappears.

It's amazing what transparency can achieve.

AND THEN WE ARRIVE AT SANDWELL CONSORTIUM...

This remains one of the most interesting parts of the whole affair.

BWA has been identified as a member organisation of Sandwell Consortium.

That isn't improper.

Community organisations working together isn't improper.

Nor is somebody connected with one organisation being involved with another.

But once organisations become involved in publicly funded commissioning, grants and service delivery, conflicts have to be actively managed.

And demonstrated to have been managed.

The question isn't:

“Is there a connection?”

We already know there are organisational connections.

The important questions are:

Who makes funding decisions?

Who scores applications?

Who sits out?

Who declares an interest?

Who receives the papers?

Are recusals recorded?

Can an organisation connected with decision-makers benefit?

What independent safeguards exist?

Where is the audit trail?

Because if money travels something like:

Public authority → intermediary/consortium → community organisation

then the public should be able to see that decisions were made independently and properly.

That protects everybody – including BWA and Sandwell Consortium.

THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED

There has been another rather substantial development since my earlier articles.

Syeda Khatun is no longer a Sandwell councillor.

She contested Tipton Green in May and lost.

That doesn't erase history.

During her time as a councillor she was also publicly associated with BWA as its Chief Executive.

I repeatedly asked questions concerning declarations of interest, recusals and the overlap between her council responsibilities and organisations with which she was connected.

She did respond once, saying she registered her conflicts and did not participate in relevant Council decisions involving organisations with which she was connected.

Fair enough.

But she then dismissed the remaining matters by saying:

“The other matters you raised do not apply to my role as Councillor.”

I asked her to explain that.

And asked again.

And again.

And again.

The substantive clarification never arrived.

Losing an election doesn't retrospectively answer questions concerning someone's period in public office.

SUZANNE HARTWELL REMAINS A COUNCILLOR

There is another connection worth remembering.

Suzanne Hartwell, who has been publicly associated with employment at BWA, was re-elected in Oldbury.

Again, employment by a charity while serving as a councillor isn't automatically improper.

The issue is conflict management.

Declarations.

Recusals.

Transparency.

Proper separation between public office and outside interests.

That's why registers of interests exist in the first place.

RECRUITMENT – ANOTHER SIMPLE SET OF QUESTIONS

I've also asked how recruitment works within BWA.

Where are jobs advertised?

Who shortlists?

Who interviews?

Are scoring sheets retained?

How are conflicts handled?

Are relatives or close associates of senior figures, trustees or politicians employed?

If so, what safeguards demonstrate that appointments were made fairly?

Again – I'm not alleging favouritism.

I'm asking BWA to demonstrate the systems which prevent it.

There's quite a difference.

AND WHAT ABOUT WHO ACTUALLY USES THE SERVICES?

BWA is described publicly as providing facilities and services for communities.

Excellent.

So another useful piece of transparency would be anonymised demographic information.

Who is benefiting?

Which communities?

Which neighbourhoods?

What age groups?

How broad is the reach?

Have there been complaints about access?

Publicly funded services claiming broad community benefit should surely be delighted to demonstrate exactly that.

BUT HERE'S THE BIGGEST RED FLAG OF ALL...

For me, it isn't actually the £344,179 in the bank.

It isn't the £276,092 staffing bill.

It isn't Sandwell Consortium.

It isn't even the missing centre-level information.

It's this:

THE TRUSTEES STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED.

I formally wrote to BWA's trustees on 7 December 2025.

I chased them on 15 December.

Their original deadline expired on 21 December.

I sent a formal final notice on 28 December.

I wrote again on 19 January 2026.

Again on 18 February.

And now again in July.

Not one substantive trustee response.

Nothing.

Nada.

Zilch.

The tumbleweed must be claiming overtime.

TRUSTEES AREN'T DECORATIONS

This is important.

A charity's trustees aren't there simply because somebody needed some names to put on Charity Commission paperwork.

They are responsible for governance and oversight.

They should understand the finances.

They should oversee senior management.

They should understand significant risks.

They should ensure conflicts are properly managed.

They should safeguard charitable assets.

And if serious governance questions are repeatedly raised, you'd expect somebody on the Board eventually to say:

“Right. Let's answer these.”

Instead, months later, we're still waiting.

That doesn't prove that any of the original concerns were justified.

But prolonged trustee silence has now created another governance concern entirely of its own making.

THE CHARITY COMMISSION HAS BEEN INFORMED

After repeated attempts to obtain answers directly, matters were formally referred to the Charity Commission in January 2026.

That referral included concerns around:

financial transparency;

trustee oversight;

reserves;

assets;

conflicts of interest;

the relationship with Sandwell Consortium;

public funding;

and the continued failure of trustees to engage.

That isn't something I've suddenly sprung upon BWA.

They were warned repeatedly that escalation would occur.

It did.

AND WE'RE GOING BACK AFTER THE PUBLIC RECORDS

Sandwell Council previously refused my broad FOI request on cost grounds.

So we're changing tactics.

Instead of one enormous request covering years of grants, contracts, assets, monitoring, safeguarding, conflicts and everything else, I'm now breaking the investigation into focused and proportionate requests.

The first has already gone in.

Others will follow covering subjects including:

current funding and contracts

capital assets

IT expenditure

asset disposals

conflicts and recusals

Sandwell Consortium funding flows

community-centre arrangements

monitoring and performance

Piece by piece.

Document by document.

Because if the information exists, eventually the picture starts assembling itself.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROVING A CONSPIRACY

And this point matters.

I'm not saying BWA has stolen money.

I'm not saying trustees have misappropriated assets.

I'm not saying Sandwell Consortium has improperly awarded funding.

I'm not saying employing politically connected people automatically means something dodgy has happened.

Those would require evidence.

What I am saying is considerably simpler.

There is public money.

There are substantial charitable funds.

There are community assets.

There are political and organisational connections requiring proper conflict management.

There are questions about recruitment, assets, accounts and expenditure.

And there has been an extraordinary reluctance to answer straightforward questions.

That is a legitimate matter of public interest.

SEVEN MONTHS LATER...

Perhaps somebody at BWA might eventually discover the Reply button.

Because after seven months the questions really aren't complicated:

What is the reserves strategy?

Where are the centre-level figures?

Where are the asset records?

What happened to replaced equipment?

How are recruitment conflicts managed?

How are BWA/Sandwell Consortium conflicts managed?

What public funding has been received and for what?

What oversight have the trustees actually exercised?

And perhaps the biggest question:

WHY WON'T THE TRUSTEES ANSWER?

If everything is perfectly proper – excellent.

Publish the evidence.

Answer the questions.

Close down the red flags.

Nothing would please me more.

Until then...

Follow the money.

Follow the power.

Follow the paperwork.

And, unfortunately...

keep following the silence.

#BWA #BangladeshiWomensAssociation #TiptonMuslimCommunityCentre #JubileePark #SandwellConsortium #SandwellCouncil #Tipton #Sandwell #PublicMoney #CharityGovernance #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #ConflictsOfInterest #CommunityGroups #FollowTheMoney #FollowThePower #FollowThePaperwork #FollowTheSilence

West Bromwich BID: £1.4 Million, Plenty of Questions – And Apparently “I Do Not Need To Do This”

 

West Bromwich BID: £1.4 Million, Plenty of Questions – And Apparently “I Do Not Need To Do This”

I have written previously about the West Bromwich Town Business Improvement District (BID) and the questions surrounding its finances, transparency, marketing, governance and, ultimately, whether businesses paying a compulsory levy are receiving genuine value for money.

With the BID holding its Annual Update on Thursday 23 July 2026, I thought this was an ideal opportunity to revisit matters.

More importantly, rather than simply criticising from the sidelines, I sent the BID Chair, Lisa Hill, a comprehensive list of questions ahead of the event and invited the BID to respond.

The reply arrived this morning.

And, well...

It probably deserves inclusion in this update.

First Things First – Apparently I'm Not Invited

Lisa Hill responded:

“This is NOT a public meeting. Levy Payers are the only ones invited to this meeting.”

Fair enough.

I hadn't actually claimed it was a public meeting, nor suggested I possessed some automatic legal right to attend.

The BID Annual Update is for levy payers.

Point taken.

But I find the response interesting nonetheless.

I am a local citizen journalist examining an organisation operating at the heart of West Bromwich town centre, working closely with Sandwell Council and West Midlands Police and administering a compulsory levy imposed upon hundreds of local businesses.

Would it really have been such a terrible thing to say:

"Darryl, it isn't a public meeting, but given the questions you've raised, you're welcome to sit quietly at the back as an observer."

Imagine the message that would have sent.

Transparency.

Openness.

Nothing to hide.

An opportunity for the BID itself to explain what it does and why.

Instead:

“This is NOT a public meeting.”

Door closed.

Hey ho.

Their meeting. Their choice.

But Then Came The More Interesting Sentence

Lisa continued:

“I will look at answering your questions below over the next couple of days and reply to you. I do not need to do this, but I will answer as much as I can.”

Now that really caught my attention.

“I do not need to do this.”

Perhaps not.

The BID is a Community Interest Company, not Sandwell Council, and it isn't generally subject to the Freedom of Information Act in the same way as a public authority.

But that rather misses the point.

Nobody should have to force an organisation like this to be transparent.

Surely it should want to be transparent.

The BID is funded through a compulsory levy.

Businesses don't simply decide whether they'd like to pop a tenner into the BID collection tin.

Qualifying businesses within the BID boundary are billed.

So when somebody asks:

Where does the money go?

What reserves do you maintain?

What has the marketing achieved?

Where are the original BID documents?

What is the measurable return for businesses?

What is genuinely additional to Council and police services?

I wouldn't expect the first instinct to be:

“I do not need to do this.”

I'd expect:

“Of course. Here are the figures.”

That's how you build confidence.

To Lisa's Credit...

There is another side to this.

Lisa has said she will answer the questions.

That should be acknowledged.

She says she will respond over the next couple of days and answer as much as she can.

Good.

I genuinely welcome that.

And when those answers arrive, I'll publish and assess them fairly.

If something I have questioned has a perfectly reasonable explanation, I'll say so.

If documents exist, let's see them.

If the finances can be satisfactorily explained, excellent.

If the marketing statistics demonstrate fantastic performance, I'll happily report them.

Accountability isn't about reaching a predetermined conclusion.

It's about getting the evidence.

So let's see what comes back.

Why Am I Asking These Questions?

Because some of the figures deserve explanation.

The latest Companies House accounts for West Bromwich Town BID CIC, covering the year ended 30 June 2025, record:

Current assets: £14,181

Net current assets: £15,078

Accruals and deferred income: £15,260

Net liabilities: £182

Let me repeat an important qualification I've made previously.

That does not establish that the BID is insolvent or unable to meet debts as they fall due.

But it does mean that the published balance sheet shows no meaningful accumulated financial reserve.

And that raises an obvious question.

How Do You Reach BID3 With £182 Net Liabilities?

The BID3 proposition anticipates investment of approximately £1.4 million over the five-year period to 2030.

We're therefore not discussing a little voluntary community group running a tombola and keeping its accounts in a biscuit tin.

This is a formal Business Improvement District administering substantial compulsory levy income.

After approximately ten years of BID operation, why does the latest published balance sheet show net liabilities of £182?

What is the BID's reserves policy?

What financial contingency exists?

How much unrestricted money is actually available?

These aren't “gotcha” questions.

They're elementary financial-governance questions.

And The Accounts Tell Us Remarkably Little

The BID legitimately takes advantage of the micro-entity reporting regime.

That means the Companies House accounts provide only limited information.

We don't get a readily accessible detailed public breakdown showing exactly how much went on:

marketing;

events;

staff;

administration;

ambassadors;

security;

cleaning;

consultants;

professional fees;

website and digital activity;

individual projects.

Again:

perfectly lawful.

But “legally sufficient” and “properly transparent” aren't necessarily the same thing.

Particularly when the income comes from a compulsory levy.

So I have asked Lisa:

Will the BID publish its full management accounts?

That one answer could resolve a considerable amount of speculation.

Then There's A £17,773.65 Question

During my latest research I identified a Sandwell Council creditor payment dated 10 November 2025.

Recipient:

West Bromwich Town BID Community Interest

Amount:

£17,773.65

Description:

“Other Creditors – West Bromwich Bid 1”

There may be a completely routine explanation.

It could relate to collected levy money, accounting reconciliation or another perfectly ordinary transaction.

I'm certainly not claiming otherwise.

But I'd like to know.

So I asked.

What exactly was the £17,773.65 payment for?

Simple question.

Hopefully, simple answer.

And What About The Historic Loans And Public Support?

Previous scrutiny has raised questions concerning historic borrowing, grants, Council payments and other financial assistance involving the BID.

So rather than speculate, I've asked the BID to identify them.

How much?

From whom?

For what?

Repayable or not?

Repaid or outstanding?

Again:

Put the information on the table and the question disappears.

Transparency really can be that simple.

Then We Come To The Missing History

One issue has followed West Bromwich BID for years.

The original establishment documentation.

There have previously been questions about the whereabouts of:

• feasibility work;

• consultation records;

• the original business case;

• establishment documentation;

• ballot material;

• detailed voting information.

The later BID3 ballot is considerably better documented publicly, and that should be acknowledged.

But it doesn't reconstruct the original paper trail.

So I've asked Lisa directly:

Does West Bromwich BID possess original documentation which Sandwell Council no longer holds?

And:

Will the original establishment documentation be published?

I'm struggling to see why either question should be controversial.

Now Let's Talk Marketing

This is where things become particularly interesting.

The BID has previously boasted about a combined social-media audience running into tens of thousands.

It promotes through Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn and now TikTok.

Excellent.

But here's my problem with combined follower numbers.

If Fred follows the BID on:

Facebook,

Instagram,

X,

TikTok

and LinkedIn...

Fred can potentially become five followers in a combined headline figure.

Fred remains one bloke.

So I've asked for the individual figures.

Platform by platform.

And not merely followers.

Reach.

Impressions.

Engagement.

Video views.

Click-throughs.

Website users.

And, most importantly:

What did any of it achieve for businesses?

Social Media Is Not A Participation Trophy

Putting something on Facebook does not automatically constitute successful marketing.

A post can exist and achieve almost nothing.

A video can have views but generate no customers.

An account can have followers who never engage with it.

What matters is the outcome.

If the BID promotes Joe Bloggs Butchers on Monday, can it demonstrate that the promotion reached thousands of relevant local people?

Did anybody click through?

Did anybody visit?

Did Joe notice an increase in customers?

That's marketing performance.

Everything else risks becoming vanity statistics.

Activity Is Not The Same As Achievement

And this distinction runs throughout the BID.

I don't claim West Bromwich BID does nothing.

Clearly it doesn't.

There are:

events;

ambassadors;

litter picks;

security initiatives;

business visits;

Christmas activities;

training;

marketing;

partnership work.

Plenty of activity.

But after approximately ten years, surely we're entitled to ask:

WHAT CHANGED?

Has footfall increased?

Have vacancies fallen?

Are businesses surviving longer?

Are more independents opening?

Has customer perception improved?

Is West Bromwich materially safer?

Has customer spending increased?

What measurable improvement can be attributed to the BID?

Holding 50 events is an output.

Increasing town-centre footfall is an outcome.

There is an enormous difference.

A Business Improvement District Or A Community Safety Partnership?

Another question I've put to Lisa concerns the substantial emphasis on:

security;

crime;

police liaison;

ambassadors;

Business Crime Reduction;

counter-terrorism awareness;

community safety.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with businesses wanting a safer town centre.

Quite the opposite.

But businesses already contribute towards public services.

Sandwell Council has responsibilities.

West Midlands Police has responsibilities.

The BID then collects an additional levy.

So:

What exactly is additional?

Where is the baseline services agreement?

What would Sandwell Council provide if the BID disappeared tomorrow?

What would West Midlands Police provide anyway?

And what specifically does the BID levy buy on top of that?

Otherwise businesses risk paying extra to compensate for inadequate baseline public services.

And Where Are The Board Papers?

I've also asked about governance.

Why aren't comprehensive Board minutes routinely available?

Why not publish:

attendance;

declarations of interest;

major decisions;

contract approvals;

performance reports;

risk information?

This is supposed to be a business-led organisation.

Surely the businesses funding it should be able to follow its decision-making.

The £1.4 Million Question

Ultimately, all of this boils down to one question.

BID3 potentially represents approximately £1.4 million of further investment.

So I have asked Lisa:

What objective evidence can the BID provide that an average levy-paying business is financially better off because West Bromwich BID exists?

That's the killer question.

Not:

“How many posts did you make?”

Not:

“How many meetings did you attend?”

Not:

“How many photographs did you take?”

Not:

“How many events did you organise?”

What difference did the BID make to the people actually paying for it?

Tomorrow's Meeting

The BID has made its position very clear.

It is NOT a public meeting.

Levy payers only.

So I won't be there.

Personally, I think allowing a local citizen journalist to attend quietly as an observer would have been a useful demonstration of openness.

Lisa thinks otherwise.

That's her prerogative.

But perhaps some levy payers attending tomorrow might ask some of these questions themselves.

They are, after all, paying the bill.

Now We Wait For The Answers

Lisa has said:

“I will look at answering your questions below over the next couple of days and reply to you.”

I'll hold her to that — fairly.

When the response arrives I'll examine it against every question submitted.

Answered.

Partially answered.

Not answered.

New question raised.

And I'll publish the results.

Because this isn't about whether Lisa Hill technically “needs” to answer me.

She doesn't need my permission to run the BID either.

The issue is much simpler:

An organisation taking compulsory money from businesses should welcome scrutiny of what it does with that money.

Transparency isn't an inconvenience.

It's part of the job.

One Final Thought

The easiest way for West Bromwich BID to demolish criticism is not to complain about people asking questions.

It's to answer them.

Publish the accounts.

Publish the KPIs.

Publish the Board information.

Publish the original documentation.

Publish the marketing results.

Publish the baseline agreement.

Show the outcomes.

And demonstrate the value.

If the evidence proves West Bromwich businesses are receiving fantastic value for their compulsory levy, I'll happily write the headline:

“I Was Wrong About West Bromwich BID.”

But first...

Show us the evidence.

#WestBromwich #WestBromwichBID #Sandwell #BID3 #LisaHill #BusinessLevy #LocalBusiness #FinancialTransparency #PublicAccountability #CitizenJournalism #ValueForMoney #TownCentreRegeneration #SandwellCouncil #ShowUsTheEvidence #TransparencyMatters

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