Campaigner Accuses Council of Constitutional Breach Over Leather Museum Relocation
A prominent campaigner has launched a fierce accusation against Walsall Council, claiming the authority is breaching its own constitution and policies by pushing forward with controversial plans to relocate the town's Leather Museum. Linda Boys, who has been leading the fight to save the much-loved attraction, has confronted councillors and directors on multiple occasions in recent months.
Policy Violations and Constitutional Concerns
Linda Boys insists the council is violating its own town centre policy, which explicitly states that 'Walsall Leather Museum will be protected at its current location'. She further argues that the constitution has been broken because it requires the executive – in this case, the council's cabinet – to act within the policy framework set by the council.
The existing museum on Littleton Street West is scheduled to close its doors on April 11. The building will then be renovated to accommodate Walsall College's Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision, currently based at Hawbush Road. The museum exhibits are planned to move to a former drapers store at 1-3 The Bridge.
Questionable Decision-Making Process
Cabinet members originally approved the relocation plans in September 2025 after being informed that the former Marks & Spencer site in the Saddlers Centre – destined to become an Adult Learning Centre – would be unsuitable for the SEND provision. The cabinet report cited 'a lack of transport accessibility and dedicated outdoor green space' as reasons for rejecting the M&S site.
However, when Linda Boys requested a copy of the feasibility study that deemed the M&S site unsuitable, the council responded that it 'does not hold a copy of any related feasibility assessment report or study'. She was directed to the college, which provided an undated, unauthored 'rationale document' that made no mention of the M&S site at all.
Financial Transparency Issues
Linda Boys has raised significant concerns about the costs associated with the relocation, including storage, renovation, and staff expenses. She noted that the council's 2026/27 budget contains no specific reference to the Leather Museum relocation, despite Council Leader Mike Bird claiming on radio that the plan would cost taxpayers nothing because it was in the capital programme.
'What's bothering me is that if it isn't in the budget where does that leave it constitutionally?' she questioned. 'The constitution is there to protect everyone. It limits any possible intentional or unintentional misuse of power.'
Dismissive Attitude and Lack of Explanation
The campaigner expressed frustration with what she described as a dismissive attitude from council officials. 'The tone of the argument, debate, has just been so dismissive, that adds insult to injury,' she stated. 'This is about openness, transparency and accountability and making sure that proper checks and balances have been made. But every time I get a bit more information it makes it more mysterious.'
She suggested the relocation had become 'almost like an obsession' that had to proceed regardless of concerns. Council Leader Mike Bird has repeatedly referred to case law, specifically Buck v Doncaster, to defend the plans, but Linda Boys claims this case is irrelevant as it only applies to decisions within established policy and budget frameworks.
Council's Position and Future Plans
Walsall Council has not provided a specific comment addressing Linda Boys' latest claims but has consistently maintained throughout the campaign that it has followed appropriate democratic and governance procedures. In a previous statement, a council spokesperson emphasized their recognition of the museum's cultural and historic significance.
'The proposal to relocate the museum is about securing a more accessible, central location that will increase footfall, enhance the visitor experience, and help ensure the museum's long-term sustainability,' the statement read. The council asserts that consultation has occurred at appropriate stages and that further community engagement will take place as plans develop for the new site.
The authority remains committed to transparency and will continue sharing information as it becomes available, though campaigners continue to demand clearer explanations for the controversial relocation decision that they believe violates both policy and constitutional requirements.
