A disregard for equality and diversity has been a constant feature of the Ladywood regeneration. Continuous threats to turn religious buildings into non-religious ones, insufficient support for older and disabled people, a lack of thorough assessment of how Black communities will be affected, and the unavailability of translated materials about the regeneration for non-native English speakers have all weakened Birmingham City Council’s engagement strategy and made it less useful.
Ladywood is an extremely diverse neighbourhood where many cultures live side by side. In the regeneration area, 40–60% of people were born outside the UK. Migrants and their children have worked hard to create stable homes here, and many other residents have built long-term lives as council tenants in the area. There is a diversity of skills as well with residents working in a range of areas such as manufacturing, retail, technology, healthcare, and education, serving the city and beyond.
Now, the threat of demolition and forced relocation is threatening this diverse community to its core. Meanwhile, Berkeley Group’s sales offices in locations like Dubai and London target rich international investors to buy apartments to rent out, instead of meeting the needs of the people who already live locally.
Birmingham City Council and Berkeley Group have often brandished the language of community, celebrating it only in the abstract, while the institutions and relationships that actively sustain it are left unacknowledged—and potentially silenced. Existing centres of community life, including churches, local restaurants, and pubs, rarely appear in regeneration documents, including the recent reports under “Understanding Ladywood.” Instead, cafés along the canal and market stalls are foregrounded as desirable additions. This selective framing risks promoting a vision of Ladywood imagined for future residents and external investors, rather than responding to the needs of the current community.
The governance of the regeneration has only reinforced this disregard for existing residents. At the latest Scrutiny Committee, it was claimed that “residents have informed the specification” of the independent advice involvement. The report to the committee also stated that “a representative panel of residents developed the quality and social value questions.” Yet this panel was attended by only nine residents in a community of more than 5,000 people.
Meanwhile, residents’ concerns have too often been pushed aside or dismissed, even in situations where equality and inclusion should be guiding principles.
At a local MIND mental health drop-in session, a woman—who was the only woman present—was handed leaflets specifically about men’s mental health, an action that offered no relevant support.
Ladywood Unite recently learned that a local religious organisation operating primarily in a non-English speaking population did not know about the regeneration until very recently. This kind of confusion is not a minor oversight. It reflects a lack of attention to individual circumstances and reinforces the feeling that some residents and groups are not being recognised for who they are.
More recently, a Ladywood resident shared a troubling experience of direct discrimination: they were told, in writing, that they were not the right ethnicity or age to be on a residents’ panel selecting an independent advice provider. Using identity as a basis for exclusion is unlawful, regardless of whether the resident comes from an under-represented group. The email text below makes it clear that their identity was the reason they were excluded from participating:
“This left our selection down to the choice between two freehold homeowners, one of whom was selected as they represented a significantly different age group to the other panellists’, and they are from an minority ethnic community, which makes the panel significantly more diverse and representative, otherwise all on the panel would have been in the same age bracket and from white ethnic backgrounds.
We are sorry that this selection criteria has meant that you have not initially been included within the evaluation panel, but please be assured that should anybody be unavailable for the panel, that you will be asked to attend.”
These are not isolated cases.
The Residents’ Steering Group—intended to speak for the community—fails to be truly representative. Members were selected rather than elected, and the group’s composition is far from reflective of the existing population. Ladywood is 77% Black and Asian minorities, yet the steering group falls far short of reflecting this reality. BCC has failed to follow through on its stated commitment to positive action, which should mean actively supporting residents from Black and Asian minority backgrounds to participate.
Meanwhile, the Steering Group’s processes are not inclusive. Much of its work requires the use of email and reading long digital documents, effectively excluding residents who are not confident or comfortable with digital tools. Residents report not hearing back about their attempts to join the steering group, left without facts about the reasons for their exclusion and harming trust.
These situations reveal a deeper misunderstanding of what equality, diversity, and monitoring frameworks are meant to achieve. These principles exist to remove barriers—not create new ones. They are intended to make services more responsive, not more dismissive. And they are designed to ensure that every resident, regardless of background, age, gender, or digital ability, has an equal opportunity to contribute and be heard.
Equality and diversity frameworks are meant to widen participation, not narrow it. Monitoring data should be used to inform better outreach, not to select or exclude individuals based on identity categories. Representation should be strengthened by adding voices, not by shutting out those who are ready and willing to participate.
Discrimination—whether explicit or arising from misguided attempts to “rebalance” representation—is still discrimination. It damages trust, undermines community relationships, and makes people feel unwelcome in spaces that are supposed to empower them.
Ladywood’s strength lies in its diversity. But diversity can only flourish when inclusion is genuine and consistent. That requires seeing each resident as an individual, providing accessible pathways for involvement, and ensuring no one is told, directly or indirectly, that their identity or abilities make them less suitable to take part.
If Ladywood is to move forward as a united community, then every resident must be able to participate in shaping its future. Inclusion must mean everyone.
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a comment