The truth about Birmingham City Council's 'untruths' over Ladywood
For over a year I've been battling to get vital information out of Birmingham City Council, in vain
Hello there, I really hope this finds you well.
I’ve just had a week off, including a social media detox, and every day I’ve been alerted to or have spotted another concerning issue that deserves urgent attention and investigation. On a work day, when I’m actively paying attention, that’s multiplied by ten. So much seems to be off right now about how things are working, and how badly so many are struggling.
I can’t recall when being a reporter here in Birmingham was more necessary, or more intense, than now. As one of only a tiny number of journalists working the politics and community news beat here daily, I do feel the weight of responsibility to reflect and expose the struggles so many are going through, and that includes holding to account those who have lives and livelihoods in their hands. There are never enough hours though, so forgive me if I’ve yet to tackle the burning issue that’s bothering you. Feel free to drop me an email jane.haynes@reachplc.com to catch me up on something that I ought to be writing about.
One of the reasons I started this newsletter was because I wanted to explore these deeper issues without the constraints (or the ads) of the short-and-sharp, fast-moving BirminghamLive platforms, and I’m so grateful for my employer’s encouragement and support to do this. Thank you too to the hundreds of you showing faith by subscribing during this slightly haphazard first months since I launched it. I genuinely believe that people in our city deserve to be as well informed as possible and I’ll explore whatever means I can in this endeavour.
In this edition of Inside Birmingham with Jane Haynes, I want to share my experience of trying to get to the truth about a story affecting thousands of people, and how Birmingham City Council fudged and changed its story over time. It’s a story that highlights an underlying issue that concerns me about how the council communicates with people.
Thanks for your support - it means a lot. I’d love it if you would spread the word…just hit the share button below.
Two summertime anniversaries have been and gone in recent weeks that you likely missed.
Back in early June last year, Birmingham City Council leader John Cotton and then chief executive Deborah Cadman announced that they had uncovered an equal pay liability that was expected to be in the region of £650 million to £760 million. It was money owed, or about to be owed, to mostly women workers who had been discriminated against for years over pay. It was such a huge figure that the whole council was sent into a tailspin, and its financial woes have multiplied ever since.
This was the same council that had been forced to pay out over a billion pounds just over a decade earlier for equal pay failings - much of it linked to task and finish working practices. Surely to goodness, it hadn’t fallen into the same trap again?
Cllr Cotton said he was shocked by the figure that he was announcing. He had not long taken over from his predecessor Ian Ward, ousted in a Labour Party internal coup, so couldn’t possibly have known what was going on, right?
Only later did an interim council officer, Darren Hockaday, expose how the extent of the equal pay crisis had been common knowledge for months inside the council leadership circle - including to then cabinet member Cllr Cotton, responsible for HR issues including…equal pay. I’ve written about the equal pay conundrum, the infamous ‘secretive meeting’ that was exposed by Hockaday, and the fallout ever since. It’s a story riven with misinformation and confusion.
But in this newsletter I want to explore another issue that broke just over a year ago.
That was when the council announced it had found a development partner to work with it to regenerate the Ladywood estate, an area long described as ‘neglected’ and overlooked. After a four year courtship that had included a hot date in Cannes, the council finally hooked up with national housing developer, Berkeley Homes, in a deal that they valued at £2.2 billion. Over a year on, contracts are still yet to be signed but the deal is all but done. It was described as an ‘exciting’ and ‘transformative’ project.
On the face of it, little links the two events. But how the council tried to spin its way out of the questions that followed these announcements are alarmingly similar. They bear the traits of an organisation that finds it difficult to be open and transparent, even while looking people in the eye and stating that it’s being both of those things.
The Ladywood ‘masterplan’ that we all know exists - so why has the council worked so hard to hide it?
The Freedom of Information Act should, in a well functioning democracy, be a ‘last resort’. It’s a way for the public and the media to pose questions and ask for information of publicly funded bodies that should be in the public domain anyway, but often isn’t, for all sorts of reasons.
The provisions of the Act are covered by legal statute and public organisations have to provide a response to FOI requests, or risk the wrath of the Information Commissioner. I’ve come to rely on the FOI provisions more than I would like in recent months in the face of the council not being as open as I think it should be, and as I try to get to the truth about the Ladywood deal.
Back in 2019 the council was trying to attract developers to look at Ladywood. It was formally seeking a private sector partner to join it to transform the estate, which is a short walk west of the city centre’s prime commercial, business and tourist areas. It adjoins the historic Jewellery Quarter and is next door to Port Loop.
Ladywood estate itself is home to just over 5,000 residents living in 1,979 properties. Some 1,266 of those properties are in council ownership, including high rise tower blocks, maisonettes and houses. The council has known for years it needed to invest in its housing stock on the estate, and also needed to do something about the poor state of its community and health centre and parks - but didn’t have the estimated £250m needed just to bring the homes up to basic decency standards.
The area is described in the subsequent scheme documents as “an outdated network of cul-de-sacs, dead ends and alleyways with rows of two-and three-storey houses, maisonettes, and concrete towers, interspersed with underused green space, poor natural surveillance and limited transport connectivity.” While that describes some of the estate, it was news to the scores of owner occupiers at the city-side of the estate, some of them living in properties worth £250-300k.
Anyway, as part of the procurement process, bidders “were required to develop an indicative Masterplan”. Among the bidders, and ultimately successful, was the bid produced by St Joseph Homes Limited, a subsidiary of Berkley Homes Plc.
Note the use of the word ‘Masterplan’. The council’s own word.
It wasn’t just any old masterplan - this was a detailed vision, part of a full business plan, with confirmed commercial and social value outputs set out, populated with artist impressions, and clearly identifying which properties would be demolished inside the ‘red line’ and what was planned to go up in its place.
In June 2023 there was a fanfare announcement by the council that St Joseph was the preferred partner for the scheme. In the paper presented to Cabinet for approval, it was hailed as “the city’s most significant housing regeneration and redevelopment opportunity”.
The existing 1,979 residential properties would nearly quadruple to 7,531. There would be new shopping, leisure and community facilities. The two primary schools on the site would be demolished and rebuilt.
The paper authorised a council assistant director to ‘negotiate the voluntary acquisition of all land and interests edged red’…in advance of and alongside the use of Compulsory Purchase powers as necessary.” It also delegated a council officer to cease lettings and start priority rehousing of tenants in council homes set for demolition.
Over the course of the next few months I sought access to the masterplan referenced in the documents via the press office at the city council and via St Joseph. Also seeking access to the documents were members of Ladywood Unite, a grassroots collaborative of residents and supporters keen to get more detail.
But in what looked like a bizarre twist, the council began to insist there was no indicative masterplan. One would be created eventually ‘in partnership with residents and the wider community’ once the contracts had been signed but THERE IS NO MASTERPLAN, the council kept shouting.
On January 3rd this year I resorted to Freedom of Information requests and wrote to ask for copies of materials submitted in the business case by St Joseph, including its outline plan indicating exactly where new homes would be put up and which areas would be demolished, artists' impressions and other important information. I also asked the council to explain why it had repeatedly told residents that no such plan has ever been created or discussed.
By this time I had stopped using the term ‘masterplan’ in my questions to the council, because they seemed to go into auto pilot in parroting that there was not one. They clearly have a very narrow interpretation of what the term means.
Despite my deliberate avoidance of the phrase, their response reads as if that is what I’ve asked for: “There is no indicative masterplan developed by Berkeley Homes. Proposed plans developed by Berkeley Homes did form part of the confidential discussion documents which were prepared for the structured negotiations which took place with Berkeley Homes, as part of the formal procurement process leading to the recommendation that they be appointed, but there does not exist any ‘indicative masterplan’ document to share. A Masterplan will be developed for the purposes of the formal decision-making processes of the Council, as the local planning authority, which will be shared and consulted upon and will, no doubt, go through several iterations before it is formally adopted.”
I persisted, asking them to review their reply and that, having acknowledged that an outline scheme had been produced by St Joseph as part of its procurement bid, to now release the details, with relevant commercial retractions.
I made my case as follows: “Birmingham taxpayers have a right to see and read the basis on which the city council accepted the bid put forward by Berkeley Homes and there is a strong public interest in sharing the basis of the agreed contract with residents, particularly those directly impacted in Ladywood. The council has directly promised to residents and in media statements that it will be open and transparent, and share full details of the proposals and plans, yet I would argue it has failed to do so.”
This time they completely ignored my additional submission and sent back the same response it had done first time. At this point it persisted that there was ‘no information to share’ so didn’t even try to come up with a legal basis for its refusal.
I made further review requests in February, and in March asked the Information Commissioner to get involved. I wrote again to the council, setting out the multiple requests and reviews, and telling them: “Taken together, this appears to amount to a pattern of behaviour seeking to delay legitimate inquiries in bad faith. So far you have failed to deal with request(s) to review (your responses). Together with other refusals to other individuals seeking information about the Ladywood scheme, this appears to amount to a planned refusal of access to information that should fairly be publicly accessible. I have submitted a request to the Information Commissioner for an investigation as this repeated delay and obfuscation is unacceptable.”
By April, the council had changed tack. It decided it should have dealt with my request under the ‘Environmental Information Regulations 2004’ and not the FOI Act.
They acknowledge now that there have been ‘some inconsistencies in the language and communication given to the community around an indicative masterplan in the council report and other documents which is misleading and we apologise for this.
“The Cabinet report referenced does refer to a masterplan, which on reflection was not the right language to use.” They then go on to insist there is no ‘masterplan’ still. They say that the documents that do exist (the ones I’ve been asking for) do not form an agreed masterplan. Therefore, there is no document to share until the proposals are formalised.”
At this point I feel I am begin gaslit by the council. They keep referring to a masterplan that doesn’t exist, and I’m not asking for a masterplan, just the relevant bid documents. I try again.
In my next inquiry, I write: “Despite your organisation using such a term in its own reports, I have not requested a masterplan. What I have requested, repeatedly, are copies of the relevant documentation submitted by Berkeley Homes/St Joseph in its bid document which ultimately led to its status as the preferred bidder for the project.
“As stated multiple times, this document was detailed, included a breakdown of housing types and materials, number of properties and locations, drawings and other information. Your continued failure to address this inquiry properly merely adds to the suspicion that you wish to suppress it from public view.”
Finally - a proper answer.
Now I finally have a fuller response. This time, the council properly acknowledges that the documents requested do exist - but then explains why it won’t share them.
The council is now of the view that “St Joseph's bid document is non disclosable under the EIR exception called 'Commercial or industrial information' (Regulation 12(5)(e ) which is subject to a public interest test.”
For the technically minded, Regulation 12(5)(e) states a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. A public authority can only withhold information if the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”
They say the requested information is commercial in nature. “During a procurement process, a development partner's plans are typically submitted as part of their bid. These plans often include the bidders design proposals, construction methodologies, timelines, and cost estimates, setting out their response to the key principles in the development of Ladywood. The selection of the development partner is often based on their qualifications and the quality of their design proposal. The information is commercial in nature.”
They then go on to explain that there is a bid document in existence, but it is “part of the confidential discussion documents which were prepared for the structured negotiations with the Council, as part of the formal procurement process for the appointment of a development partner. The bid document was accepted on a confidential basis to protect the commercial interests of St Joseph's to ensure a fair and competitive bidding process which has an inherent duty of confidentiality in tendering exercises. During and after the procurement exercise finished the bid document has retained the necessary quality of confidentiality as the information is not trivial and has not been shared more widely within the Council nor put in the public domain. We are of the view, the tender documents are covered by a common law duty of confidentiality.”
They go on to say that sharing this indicative plan now would not just break a commercial confidence, but would damage the commercial economic interests of St Joseph. It would “enable future contractors retaining or improving market position and competitors to gain access to commercial valuable information”.
For the first time, we also hear from St Joseph - who say that they ‘believe refusing to disclose the tender documents will protect their commercial bargaining position in the context of existing or future negotiations which could result in a loss of revenue or income.”
They add: “It is our view, disclosure of a commercially confidential document would deter future bidders, potential development partners of the Council, from providing their tender documents to the Council.”
They add: “The council does recognise the principles of openness, accountability and transparency , and some benefits of disclosure of the tender documents submitted and its ability to inform the public but there is also an existing public interest to protect the integrity of public procurement exercises which involves a relationship of trust and confidentiality with bidders, and the reputation of the Council as a public body to allow for fair competition to best serve the protection of public funds.
“The Council considers in all the circumstances that maintaining the confidentiality of the bid document outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information as disclosure in this case would impact engagement, views and input of the community into the consultation process, thinking there is a plan already agreed, which is not the case, thus not engaging in the consultation process which is essential to develop and agree a masterplan for the area.”
They end: “It is considered that the greater public interest therefore lies in not providing the information at this time. In coming to that conclusion, the public interest in providing the information has been carefully weighed against any prejudice to the public interest that might arise from withholding the information; in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Inside Birmingham with Jane Haynes to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.