The structure of Darlaston’s £20 million decision-making board for the Plan for Neighbourhood Programme has faced ongoing criticism from local residents, describing it as an ‘intolerable mess’ and lacking proper accountability.
At a recent Walsall Council public meeting, resident Alison Humpage voiced strong concerns about the board, labelling it ‘ignorant’ and accusing it of excluding community members from the decision-making process. She urged Reform leaders to re-establish the board with better representation and transparency.
The board consists of 16 members, seven of whom reside in Darlaston, while the rest either work in the town or bring expertise in areas such as education, housing, and crime. This composition has been contested, with residents objecting to what they term a ‘businessman-led’ model that does not reflect the community’s interests.
READ MORE: Father and Son Sentenced After Violent Family Attack in Small Heath
Deputy Council Leader Councillor Nicky Barker explained that, according to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, residents include those who work in the area, meaning over two-thirds of board members meet this definition. However, this has done little to quell concerns.
At the July 27 meeting, Alison Humpage referenced guidance from a former communities minister, emphasising that councils should not control the appointment of board members or the chair. She highlighted that the board was established by council officers and the chair appointed through a council-led process, resulting in a lack of resident-majority voting members.
Humpage criticised the secrecy surrounding board meetings, which are not held publicly, and the absence of responsiveness to public inquiries regarding decisions and funding. She stated:
“There is zero accountability and residents are egregiously shut out of this entire process. Darlaston Pride in Place has not complied with government guidance, nor the minister’s clear direction.”
She concluded by challenging Councillor Barker and the council to rectify what she described as an ‘ignorant, incorrectly set-up mess’ to better serve the people of Darlaston.
In response, Councillor Barker acknowledged the issues raised but emphasised the council’s focus on moving forward. She stated that it was important to learn from the experience and improve communication with residents.
Councillor Barker said:
“Our priority must be to ensure that the significant investment available to Darlaston delivers tangible benefits to the community. Rather than revisiting and delaying the programme, I believe our focus should be on ensuring that its future development is open, transparent and shaped by local people.”
She committed to enhancing communication, increasing public engagement opportunities, and making decision-making processes as transparent as possible. Despite differing views on the board’s formation, there was agreement on a shared ambition to see Darlaston succeed.
The debate underscores ongoing tensions between local authorities and residents regarding governance, transparency, and community involvement in significant local projects.