Walsall Council Accused of Constitutional Breach Over Leather Museum Relocation
Council Accused of Breaching Constitution in Museum Decision

Walsall Council Accused of Constitutional Breach Over Leather Museum Relocation

Nine councillors in Walsall have accused the local authority of breaching its own constitution by deciding to relocate the Leather Museum without involving all elected members. The decision, made by just nine members of the council's cabinet on September 15, 2025, has sparked controversy over procedural transparency and the protection of heritage assets.

Constitutional Concerns Raised

Councillor Sarah-Jane Cooper, representing the Streetly ward, argues that the relocation amounts to a fundamental change in cultural provision and should have been voted on by all 60 council members. She stated, "Although it was presented as a service delivery or asset decision, the combined effect of relocating the Leather Museum and disposing of the building amounts to a change in policy. Under the constitution, the cabinet can implement existing policy, but full council must approve changes to the policy framework."

Cooper emphasised that the museum serves residents across multiple wards, schools, visitors, and external partners borough-wide. She warned that not bringing this matter to full council sets a dangerous precedent for disposing of heritage assets without proper debate, undermining the constitution's role in ensuring transparent decision-making on matters of strategic importance.

Council Leadership Defends Decision

In response, deputy leader Councillor Adrian Andrew defended the cabinet's authority at a public scrutiny meeting on January 20, stating, "Cabinet is the body with the proper executive authority to make decisions about buying or disposing of buildings. Local authorities purchase and dispose of buildings routinely as part of normal operational and regeneration activity."

Leader Councillor Mike Bird cited the landmark case of Buck v Doncaster MBC, where a judge ruled that the cabinet structure is the ultimate arbiter in such decisions. This case involved a resident's attempt to save libraries from closure, with the court upholding the mayor's authority to ignore a council vote. Bird asserted, "The law is the law. The cabinet structure that we have is the ultimate arbiter, and therefore the decision has been taken."

Councillors Challenge Legal Interpretation

However, Councillor Cooper dismissed this reliance on Buck v Doncaster as "misplaced", arguing it does not grant the executive unlimited freedom to act without full council approval. She expressed concern that reclassifying such significant decisions as "operational" risks future similar actions bypassing democratic scrutiny.

When contacted by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, councillors' opinions revealed divided sentiments. Out of the 60 councillors, excluding the nine cabinet members who approved the decision:

  • 40 did not respond at all.
  • Nine openly opposed the decision.
  • Two did not take a stance but agreed it should have been brought to full council.

List of Opposing Councillors

The nine councillors who opposed the decision are:

  1. Councillor Chris Bott – Independent
  2. Councillor Paul Bott – Independent
  3. Councillor Jade Chapman – Advance UK
  4. Councillor Sarah-Jane Cooper – Conservative
  5. Councillor Michael Coulson – Labour
  6. Councillor Khizar Hussain – Independent
  7. Councillor Lucie Nahal – Labour
  8. Councillor Eileen Russell – Labour
  9. Councillor Pete Smith – Independent

Additionally, Councillor Bobby Bains (Conservative) and Councillor Vera Waters (Independent) did not support or oppose the decision but believed it should have been debated by full council. Walsall Council has been approached for an official statement on the matter.