Walsall Council accused of ‘breaching the constitution’ in Leather Museum decision
Relocating the Leather Museum should have been decided by all 60 elected members, says Councillor Sarah-Jane Cooper.
The Streetly ward member said the decision, which was made by nine members of Walsall Council’s cabinet on September 15, 2025, amounts to a change in policy and should therefore be voted on by all members at the council.
She said: “Although it was presented as a service delivery/asset decision, the combined effect of relocating the Leather Museum and disposing of the building amounts to a fundamental change in cultural provision, therefore amounting to a change in policy.
“Under the constitution, the cabinet can implement existing policy but full council must approve changes to the policy framework.”
At a public scrutiny meeting on January 20, deputy leader Councillor Adrian Andrew said: “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. The council has done so many times and will continue to do so in the future.”
Leader of the authority Councillor Mike Bird added: “The law is the law. If you look at the case of Buck v Doncaster MBC, it was ruled by a judge that the cabinet structure that we have is the ultimate arbiter and therefore the decision has been taken.”
Buck v Doncaster was a landmark case which saw a resident, Carol Buck, try to save libraries from closing in Doncaster.
The Mayor of Doncaster planned to close the libraries, but councillors at the local authority passed a budget amendment to fund them instead. When the mayor ignored the council’s vote, Carol Buck challenged it in court.
But it was ruled that the council can not dictate decisions that the mayor, or executive, carry out, and the mayor’s decision to ignore the council’s vote was lawful.
Councillor Cooper said Councillor Bird’s reliance on Buck v Doncaster MBC is ‘misplaced’ and ‘does not give the executive unlimited freedom to act without full council’.
She said: “The Leather Museum serves residents across multiple wards, schools, visitors, and external partners borough wide.
“Not bringing this to full council sets a precedent for disposal of heritage assets without full council debate.
“The constitution exists to ensure that decisions of major public significance are taken transparently by all elected members collectively and debate matters of strategic importance.
“Failing to bring this to full council risks future decisions being similarly reclassified as ‘operational’.”
Given that many councillors have voiced the desire to have the decision brought to full council, the Local Democracy Reporting Service contacted them all to offer them a chance to have their say.
Out of the 60 councillors, excluding the nine cabinet members who approved the decision, 40 of them didn’t respond at all. Nine said they oppose the decision and a further two who didn’t oppose or support the decision said it should have been brought to full council.
Councillors who opposed the decision:
Councillor Chris Bott – Independent
Councillor Paul Bott – Independent
Councillor Jade Chapman – Advance UK
Councillor Sarah-Jane Cooper – Conservative
Councillor Michael Coulson – Labour
Councillor Khizar Hussain – Independent
Councillor Lucie Nahal – Labour
Councillor Eileen Russell – Labour
Councillor Pete Smith – Independent
Councillors who did not support or oppose the decision but said it should have been brought before full council to decide:
Councillor Bobby Bains – Conservative
Councillor Vera Waters – Independent
Walsall Council has been approached for a statement.
