Council faces questions over decision to move Walsall Leather Museum

Councillors in Walsall have been questioned over the council’s decision to close and relocate Walsall Leather Museum, which opponents say was “unconstitutional” and rushed through without adequate scrutiny or consultation.

Around 40 museum supporters attended a full council scrutiny meeting on 26 February, in which campaigner Linda Boys was permitted to ask two questions about the Leather Museum.

The meeting came after an internal feasibility report commissioned by the council in 2024, which was seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service last month, showed that a future Walsall Museum replacing the existing venue could cost up to £12m and take more than a decade to deliver.

Campaigners warn that the costly bill and unclear timeline, along with the council’s previous record of closing museums, could mean the Leather Museum never reopens.  

Boys sought answers from the council regarding “inconsistencies, subsequent denial of rights for stakeholders, consultation and financial duties”.

She said: “We can’t afford to get this wrong. Can the council explain why the current proposal which appears to present as a change in policy, has not been consulted upon?”

Boys asked the council for more detail how the decision complied with its asset management strategy, where the funding for the capital purchase and refurbishment of a new facility was contained in the council's capital programme, and to specify the associated costs.

She also asked the council to “indicate where within the proposed budget are the costs of the removals, storage, relocation, insurance of the collections, building upkeep, staffing, and the collection security, and what will be the revenue cost for those this year and the medium financial term?”

Boys said: “Will you pause progress on this matter immediately, and if not, explain the reasons? This is unconstitutional and outside policy planning framework.”

Mike Bird, the leader of the council, responded by saying that “cabinet have made a decision in accordance with the law”, referring to a legal precedent set by the case of Buck vs Doncaster MBC to justify the cabinet having full and final say on decisions.

Boys interjected to describe his reliance on the case as “wrong”. Tempers reportedly flared when Bird responded that “the constitution says you want an answer to the question, if you don’t want it then shut up.

“The cabinet has made their decision, which is constitutional, and as a result it would be unlawful to go back and change that decision, so therefore the answer is no.”

This led to shouts from the public gallery and calls for Bird to apologise. Boys was then asked to cut short a supplementary question that she had prepared, leaving out a preamble that gave context to her question.

The supplementary question asked the council leader to pause progress on the matter immediately and call an extraordinary meeting of full council to ensure that decisions on the proposal—or any alternatives—could be made “openly, transparently, and in accordance with constitutional and policy and procedural requirements”.

Multiple witnesses have submitted official complaints about the conduct and chairing of the meeting to the council’s standards board and monitoring officer, Museums Journal understands.

Lauren Broxton, a local leather-worker who is leading the campaign to save the museum, said: “As a campaign team, we believe that on many occasions, we have not been granted the rights of full democratic processes and many key issues have arisen that continue to not be acknowledged by the council.

“There remains a serious sense that due process has not been followed and council have been rushing to get this through and the museum closed in record time, with rumours of an 11 April closing date for the public – though nothing has been confirmed.

“The full council meeting appeared to be another shut down of genuinely concerned residents participating in democracy and trying to safeguard their collective heritage.”

Councillor Bird told the meeting that the relocation plans were consistent with the council's existing policies and had followed the correct governance process.

He said: “The decision was considered transparently and published on the council’s website. It has since been reviewed twice by the scrutiny committee who have the power to revert the decision to the council, but decided not to. They referred it back to the decision making body, which was the cabinet.”

Bird added that publishing details of costs at this stage would be inappropriate and could risk the council’s commercial position.

The council has been approached for comment.