Jay Singh-Sohal

Since my last post about the fight to save Sutton Coldfield police station, much has happened yet residents of the Royal Town are still missing one essential necessity, both civic and courteous, from the West Midlands Labour PCC: a public consultation into the closure of our current site.

This latest article is to update locals on where we are. It comes with a new call to action: to fill out this survey to capture YOUR views as residents about our police station. If the PCC won’t give an open public consultation, then we as concerned Suttonians are left no alternative but to do so ourselves. So please take 5 minutes to fill out this survey.

So where are we? A quick recap is below followed by details gleaned from the planning application made for the police houses on Anchorage Road. Not a clear plan from the PCC, but residents being left to piece together something of an idea for what may follow the closure of our current station anmd how we will be kept safe.

Remember back in July, we saw a “for sale” sign put up just days after the General Election with no public engagement with us, local Councillors or our MP Andrew Mitchell. This was followed by another saying the police station will move in winter 2025, with tick boxes for what the PCC says will remain. Four months on we have no clearer indication of what this will mean practically or indeed whether it will actually be viable.

As a long standing campaigner on the issue of the police station (it’s why I ran for PCC myself in 2021) I’ve consistently spoken to concerned residents, liaised with our local elected officials. I put together three realistic requirements for us locally, here’s what happened:

1 – The sale to be postponed pending a public consultation.  This has clearly not happened, and instead the PCC is ploughing on with the sale which I’m led to believe will occur in early 2025 to make the move from the current site a foregone conclusion. More details further below.

2 – Our Town Councillors to recall the PCC to a Council Meeting at the soonest opportunity: this the Labour PCC has explicitly refused to do.

He took up an offer made earlier in 2024 to attend a residents meeting in Wylde Green on 5th September. There, the anger of local residents about the police station was clearly on display (have a listen to the audio below). The event chair Cllr Alex Yip JP did a great job of holding the PCC to account. When pressed on the issue of speaking to residents and town councillors, the PCC dodged the question like a politician and not the conduit between the people and the police he is meant to be. Cllr Yip repeatedly asked the PCC if he would meet the Town Council as the democratically elected body representing Sutton Coldfield as this request has been previously refused. Simon Foster, who proudly claims on his Twitter/X to “defend democracy and rights of the people I represent” said … NO!. It was necessary for Cllr Yip to make clear the Wylde Green meeting could not be used as a pretext for the PCC to not attend other ward forums or Sutton Coldfield Town Council meetings. Have a listen for yourself:

As you can hear, the PCC was disrespectful of Sutton Coldfield residents and demeaning about our right to have our say. The argument he makes is that their is no change in service so the police station closure does not require a public consultation. When residents asked how much of the savings made from the police station will be put back into Sutton Coldfield, the PCC said the money belongs to the police and any capital receipt will go back to WMP to be reinvested into the region not directly to Sutton Coldfield!

3 – Our local MP to raise the issue within Parliament: this Andrew Mitchell MP did in a very good debate in September which the new Policing Minister Diane Johnson MP responded to. You can watch this on YouTube here. The outcome, residents more aware about the core issues and in agreement with our MPs approach …BUT the Labour PCC Simon Foster still unmoved. Instead he has continued to plead for a private meetings with our MP about the issue, which Andrew Mitchell has rightly rejected because it is no replacement for a public consultation.

So what next for the current police station.

The sale proces continues with much haste from the PCC, no doubt keen to get this done and make it a foregone conclusion. I won’t speculate on who the buyers of the building may end up being, except to say that given there used to be a tunnel from the police station to the adjoining court house, this might be of consideration to interested parties.

The below schematic shows the current site, yes it’s large compared to what we’re gettin instead for a police station (more later on this). Given it’s prime location across the road from a school and college, and on the edge of the Royal Town’s “Heritage” zone, I hope a suitable buyer steps forward that can enhance our reputation as an area worth conserving and not present too much change to a Royal Chartered Town.

The ground schematic marks in red part of the proposed new “police station” site on Anchorage Road. A planning application has been lodged with Birmingham City Council that gives more details about the PCCs plans for the “replacement” police station, I’m sharing these here but it’s ridiculous we’re learning about it this way, from a planning application! And that we are left with no clear plan of what will follow the closure of the current site.

What is clear from what follows is that there will have to be a change in service because what’s planned will not be large enough or suitable enough. In order for it to be it would cost money, which successive Labour PCCs have consistently claimed they do not have. All this incoherence and mis information is why it is only right we have a public consultation.

The PCC Simon Foster’s “plan”.

The PCC says current services will move to the current houses West Midlands Police own at 39 Anchorage Road. This is the white building shown below. It is a vacant office which will, we’re told, be converted into a “police station”.

To the left of the white building is a current police annex at 35-37 Anchorage Road (brown building above), which is listed as an office but appears empty. To the left of it you can see the back entrance into the back of the current police station.

We should be concerned about whether these buildings are 1) large enough, 2) suitable enough and 3) cost effective enough to replace our current police station and the current service we receive. One element follows the other.

Firstly, is it big enough? The planning app notes the site has 145 square metres of gross internal floor space and no further extension of this is proposed. The planning application indicates that the PCC plans for the Neighbourhood Team, Response Team AND Public Contact Team to be based out of number 39. Below is an image of the floor plan. You decide if it’s large enough to accommodate 40 people.

The floor plan suggests a leaner local policing service. It may work to turn the ground floor into a front desk area with offices upstairs and in the annex next door. But it’s not offices we need but a fully functioning police station. That requires deeper consideration about such things as: public vs securitised access and flow-through areas, secure interview rooms, secure evidence rooms, secure lockers and storerooms. Not to mention spaces for police officer welfare and personal needs. If there are firearms on site (or likely to be) then secure rooms and zones for that. Is there an armoury or similar space for taser? And will there be a custody area, if not a custody suite?

The size of the current plan plus annex suggests it is not fit for purpose as a replacement for our current station and policing needs. And it’s not a replication of the current service we need but an enhancement for a growing Royal Town of +100,000 residents.

Next suitability. It’s not possible to see inside but from the street you can tell that the building/offices require work to bring it to a standard for police occupation and use. The buildings do not appear to adjoin, so if staff are doing one job at number 39 and requiring access to number 35-37 how will they get around securely and safely? Route access is an operational security (OPSEC) and personal security (PERSEC) consideration. The back of the site will have spaces for police cars but the access onto Anchorage Road, which is busy during rush hour, will prove difficult for visitors as well as residents.

The planning application states that their are issues for consideration in “the impact on neighbouring residents’ amenity, and the suitability of the access and parking”. Anchorage Road residents will be affected as there will be no public parking on site, meaning visitors will either have to park in the pay and display down the road or, more likely, will bother locals for their parking spaces.

So floor plan space is concerning as is suitability. Well they could knock through walls and build access points in. This leads me to the final point, about cost. Any work to make the Anchorage Road buildings fit for purpose to a basic policing standard will require funds (which the PCC says he does not have). To make the proposed new site fit for purpose with the current level of policing service will require significant spend, build work and assurance that it is suitable to be a police station. Not office. But a police station, with all the security elements and policy requirements that entails for such a site. How much cost, we do not know because the PCC has not outlined any plans. He has not given an indicator on cost or budget for the new site. He has not said how local policing will be assured to it’s current level. Or how victims will be confident in his plan.

He has only told us what services will be there but that is clearly wishful thinking. Because his plan is not realistic, desirable or deliverable but simply flawed.

This all leads me to believe the PCC will simply renege on what he has said about our local poliicing service through the fact it would be impractical and unrealistic for it to be delivered out of converted houses on Anchorage Road.

These West Midlands PCCs have a habit of doing so, just ask residents in Dudley about their “superstation” or in Solihull about what’ll happen about the site at Homer Road.

This matter is not simply about having a public consultation about Sutton Coldfield police station, it is now about the representative who says he is there to represent democracy. Simon Foster is meant to represent our concerns within policing leadership. He has failed to do so. That is not leadership but a dereliction of duty. The PCC is proving to be inept at doing the job he was elected to do: to ensure people have a voice when it comes to policing decisions.

What next for a public consultation:

That is why we need you to fill out this survey. With residents’ thoughts and opinions logged, we can give a snapshot of the feeling that is out there. We can share these views with people who can hold the PCC to account, from our local MP to the Policing Minister. I’ll even write and share the findings with the PCC himself, although I’m doubtful he will listen to why we need a thorough rethink, through a public consultation, of his “plan”. Perhaps the Chief Constable might take more direct interest in your views as local residents!

Our local police officers and staff do a commendable job, so it is concerning they are being let down by the elected PCC. If only one thing comes from this campaign, I hope it is reassurance amongst those who serve and protect us in uniform that residents are on their side and want what’s best for them to be able to do their jobs to the highest of standards. In a demanding world they deserve nothing but the best facilities that a police station can offer. Not a souped up office but a fully functioning police station.

Ends.