Britton waives it through

Last month I reported on the fact that Rhodia (convenience name for Solvay’s toxic assets), had finally submitted a retrospective planning application for camera posts and additional cameras at their toxic hazardous waste rattlechain lagoon. THIS HAD ONLY BEEN DONE AFTER A REMINDER BY THE PLANNING OFFICER SUGGESTING THAT THEY WOULD FACE ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

For a large multinational company this is quite a surprise, but I am afraid that it doesn’t surprise me as they appear to do whatever they like in the area anyway, and so this case proved still further.

Not only did this application submit an invalid plan, but also chose to present the site as some form of wonderful open space, minus mentioning that it was still a hazardous waste site “monitored” under licence by the environment agency, (or at least that is the theory).

So the completely expected recommendation for approval by the officer dealing with this, except  what appears to be very underhand decision notice accompanying it.

Firstly let’s take a look at the officer report.

DC_17_60912-DELEGATED_REPORT-912617

 

The retrospective application was recommended for approval. It is interesting that the correct title “rattlechain lagoon” is now given though Rhodia were using “rattlechain mere” on the site plans.

 

 

The officer (Alison Bishop) mentions the previous planning application passed in 2010 which had conditions relating to one camera as well as the new pole mounted cameras on the North Embankment, yet somehow appears to forget the other part of the application totally in her officer report , i.e “and three new additional cameras fixed to existing camera post (non pivotal with zoom lenses).”

Here they are below, which are located right next to the homes in Callaghan Drive.

 

“The applicant is seeking retrospective permission for two cameras mounted on 4 metre high poles immediately adjacent to the canal tow path at the northern edge of the waste lagoon. The cameras will be fixed and have a zoom facility, with one camera incorporating a speaker. The applicants have also indicated that photographic evidence of major damage to the north bank occurred due to ‘bottle collectors’ entering the site via the top boundary fence during the period of November 2015 to November 2016. “

Hang on a minute, this is suggesting that Rhodia are unclear as to when the alleged intrusion took place and supposedly people were digging for bottles. The cameras, were by their admission erected between August-November of 2016, so how are they unable to pinpoint the exact timeframe if their existing camera was actually working?

It is incredible that a plan which is not accurate in terms of the location site boundary is accepted by this council, based on the positions of the cameras being accurate! If this is the case would it be acceptable to submit a 1905 ordnance survey map before any houses had been built and the site was still being used as a brickworks  providing that the cameras were in the right place?

The level of  113 decibels that the speaker is capable of was not mentioned in the application.  It may be worth Alison Bishop taking a look at this HSE page, and she negates to mention this new legislation (The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (the Noise Regulations) in the bottom of the report.

“The level at which employers must provide hearing protection and hearing protection zones is now 85 decibels (daily or weekly average exposure) and the level at which employers must assess the risk to workers’ health and provide them with information and training is now 80 decibels. There is also an exposure limit value of 87 decibels, taking account of any reduction in exposure provided by hearing protection, above which workers must not be exposed.”

I don’t see any such document submitted by Rhodia, or for the members of the public either. There is also the small matter of speaker also being added to the existing camera pole next to the houses (see picture above). 113 decibels is equivalent to the sound of an emergency vehicle siren for comparison. What do they intend playing from this speaker, a siren, voice warning, loud music? These are unanswered questions that should have been determined.

“the history of the site as waste tip is not relevant to this application”

Well what is the relevance of the original planning application allowing a camera on the site as revealed in that officer report? What crap.

“As the nearest residents on Callaghan Drive are 300 metres from the cameras, it is considered that their privacy will not be compromised”

NO NO NO, what about “and three new additional cameras fixed to existing camera post (non pivotal with zoom lenses).”  Why does the officer totally forget about these? Or fail to ask any questions about these cameras being “electronically blanked out” – whatever that means?

There is also no explanation as to why additional cameras were needed at the South of the site away from the embankment.

The records of intruders were not submitted with the application. If it was possible to submit records, then how were Rhodia able to provide these without the cameras in operation?

Now here is the underhand part of this affair.

Although this report was recommended for approval, I got no notification as objector,  given that I had made a material objection.

On the same day that this report was written, it received automatic delegated approval from Mr Jan Britton, Chief Executive of Sandwell MBC.

DC_17_60912-GRANT_PERMISSION-912605

This was the same day as the planning committee meeting at Sandwell Council house, yet for some unexplained reason, this application does not even appear on the officially approved delegated list for that night. WHY?

Jan Britton has been at post in Sandwell council for seven years , having previously been involved in regeneration and highways. He also in the past has worked for Barking and Dagenham council, Buckinghamshire County Council and Colchester Borough council.

There has been considerable failure in Sandwell council throughout the period of Mr Britton’s tenure as chief officer, most notably wide scale fraud and deception by elected members and officers under his watch. In fact the reason why his signature appears on this approved application is that Sandwell currently has no chief planning officer with the demise of Nick Bubalo, another officer heavily criticised for failure in the now infamous Wragge report.

Add to this Sandwell’s record of delaying and lying in freedom of information requests as well as the infamous murder of birds to which Sandwell council officers lied. Britton didn’t even reply to my concerns about his corrupt parks officers. Rhodia on the other hand just poison birds and try to deny the evidence.

One has to ask how long Britton can sustain all the failure of this council and one must also look at the claims of now current leader Steve Eling about “draining the swamp” regards wrong doing at Sandwell council. It doesn’t appear to matter who leads this council, as Trinity Street always appears to be well connected politically.

It can be no coincidence that this report and application goes under the radar at the same time as the Dudley Port Supplementary Planning document appears to suggest that adding more houses around this hazardous waste site would be a good idea. The authors also played down the nature of the site  “the wet tip” as Rhodia did in their application.

There are some unanswered questions about this application and approval which I intend to FOI.

Perhaps it is not the swamp at John’s Lane that needs an application for extra cameras and speaker systems operated by Robowatch to watch what is going on there, but the cesspit located at Freeth Street Oldbury.