Councillors fail to act in fight against Walsall Leather Museum at latest scrutiny meeting
The disposal of the Leather Museum building to Walsall College for its Special Education Needs offering was brought before councillors last night.
Members of Walsall Council’s prosperous places scrutiny committee had the opportunity to challenge, seek reassurance or make recommendations to cabinet about the decision.
Relocating the Leather Museum to a mystery town centre location is one of the most controversial plans the authority has made in recent history, but most members of the committee raised no concerns.
While Labour leader Councillor Matt Ward showed engagement, the rest of the committee either said nothing at all or provided very little by way of scrutiny.
Chairman Councillor Kenneth Ferguson seemed to be of the belief that his hands were tied on the matter.
The recommendations that were requested by lead campaigner Lauren Broxton called for the council to immediately halt the plans, hold a full, open public consultation, publish a full timeline and reasoning behind the process, and commit to transparency and accountability in future dealings involving community assets.
But any frail attempt of a recommendation to cabinet were quickly brushed off.
Instead the committee suggested the plans should be brought to future scrutiny committee meetings as the process continued to move forward.
Lauren and fellow campaigner Linda Boys attended the committee to quiz the leaders responsible for the decision, council leader Cllr Mike Bird and deputy leader Cllr Adrian Andrew.
Both Lauren and Linda asked about a £47,550 feasibility study into the future of the Walsall Leather Museum in February 2024 to architect company Hill Harvey-Wood, but no information was provided.
When Councillor Ward asked about claims that Freedom of Information requests regarding the museum had not been responded to properly, Councillor Gary Flint responded with how the new museum offer will be ‘bigger and broader’.
Speaking at the meeting, Lauren said: “The sustained and well evidenced opposition from residents, heritage parties, sector professionals and elected representatives, the reliance on disputed or unpublished figures to justify decision-making, and the repeated refusal or delay in releasing key reports and financial information, all raise legitimate concerns about transparency, value for money and due process.”
Linda, describing the decision as ‘contentious’, said: “How can scrutiny assure itself and what measures have been taken to ensure that this proposal does not contravene government guidance on managing public money?”
Economy and environment director Dave Brown said: “I’ve dealt with lots of things like this and it has never been suggested that these types of transactions are contentious. It’s effectively normal day-to-day business in terms of management of estates.”
Councillor Andrew said that the council’s cabinet is the executive body which has the authority to buy and sell buildings. He added: “The council has acted within its delegated authority and followed its legal governance process throughout.”
Councillor Bird, referring to case law, said: “It was ruled by the judge that the cabinet structure that we have is the ultimate arbiter and therefore the decision has been taken.”
He later went on to say that it would have ‘been easier to close the museum’ rather than relocate it, referring to the council’s £850m budget.
But in the last scrutiny in October 2025 Councillor Bird said the decision did not form any part of budget savings.
It was also heard that Walsall College is yet to carry out their side of the lease agreement.
Linda asked: “There is another important principle that we haven’t mentioned which is the Subsidy Control Act of 2022. Where there is a contentious decision being made, if it could be argued that the council has offered a market advantage to any enterprise, then it could be considered irregular if they subsequently apply for treasury approval.
“£14m investment into the Adult Learning Centre in the town, £2.4m being invested in the Leather Museum building only now to make these changes, and at no cost to the college. I think that is classed as a subsidy.
“We’re not giving this kind of subsidy to the other providers, at peppercorn rent on top of the capital investment. We request this committee to ask cabinet what the liability would be for Walsall council tax payers if the council is found to have acted irregularly or unlawfully.”
Dave Brown said: “You referred to subsidy and disposal with less-than-best consideration. That was all set out to cabinet members in the private report to cabinet when they made that decision. It’s not that you can’t do it, there’s a process to go through that, and we’ve gone through that process.”
It was heard in the meeting the council had an offer accepted on a town centre building this week for the museum to move in to.
When asked whether the new building could be the home for Walsall College’s SEND offering, and for the Leather Museum to be left where it is, Councillor Bird said the new building ‘would not be able to accommodate SEN children’.
In October 2025, Councillor Andrew confirmed taxpayers’ money had already been set aside to renovate the Leather Museum building to make it suitable for the SEND students.
