Are you lucky enough to live in the 1km HSE consultation zone?
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU, except if you worked for Albright and Wilson or Rhodia, in which case UP YER BUM!!
Yes it’s that time of year when Solvay, now known as “Syensqo” push a calendar through local doors blowing their own trumpets, and trying to keep a lid on their own apparatus in the vile production units containing enough dangerous chemicals to wipe out an entire city.
I do from time to time pass by the Mordor of Phosphorus towers B69 at Trinity Street. The signage has changed over time, of course from Albright and Wilson to the ghastly Monsieurs of Rhodia and then the Belgians of Solvay.
If ever there was a brownfield site for housing that would be one. A recent social media post however caught my eye about the annual alarm they sound to still look relevant once a year in October that sounds like an air raid siren. Here is a previous example and note the name.
At first I thought of a nasal blockage remedy, or maybe the Langley Band venturing into a tribute act to Status Quo. 😆 I straight away investigated who this new name was, and surprise surprise SYENSQO it turns out, pronounced “Science Co” , is a spin off Belgian company which is basically just Solvay in disguise and was set up around one year ago. This split is interesting and for me it perhaps suggests that the writing is on the wall for this long standing site- when foreign owned the break up and eventual withdrawal from the UK is on the cards.
The site employs a shadow force of what it used to back in the Albright and Wilson days- no doubt as a result of lack of human need and also less products being made there.
It has taken Oldbury nearly a year to replace the Solvay branding- perhaps another clue as to how little valued this old contaminated problem site is to the EU Brussels based crew. A satellite entity based in Brexit Britain will be too expensive to keep afloat- unless of course , it pays its way. The parent will not bail it out if it doesn’t and the divestment will commence.
apparently, they have brought together “the greatest scientific minds” LOL
According to their website- the are “explorers”
The new tag line “advancing humanity” is typical of the times- perhaps a nod to AI or hybrid humanity injected with artificial life. It will certainly not be advancing my life in any way and nor will it to the local population who still live in the shadow of a top tier COMAH site that could blow at any moment.Don’t wait for the alarm if there is a real incident- because they won’t sound it.
There have been over the last 50 years of this rotten borough what can only be described as “beauties” in terms of the calibre of local amateur politicians- usually elected through nepotism, union position or for political block vote tokenism. Someone once described to me one particular individual from the Tipton area as “having less brains than a dog fart.” I couldn’t comment as I never had dealings with the individual, though unfortunately over the years with my campaigning for environmental and animal issues I have had the misfortune to encounter certain characters who would be more at home at a cadaver convention, falling asleep at meetings and not having a fucking clue when “chairing” meetings without a constant look to the side for someone to whisper in their ear as to what to say or do next.
Generally I don’t have time for the political class, and their company and counsel is perhaps on my not to do bucket list slightly under “gargling white phosphorus” , “voting liberal” and ” “looking for gloves” with Ian Brady on the moors”.
It is fairly clear to me that few understand the issues of pollution and the amount of history behind the story at Rattlechain, and fewer still who have bothered to put their head above the parapet and ask meaningful questions of scrutiny that put officers in environmental health and planning on the back foot, when most of the time these civil service swine are holding cock for polluters and developers.
This case from 1993 was in the thick of the swindle concerning foundry sand dumping across both the former Duport’s Tip and the Coneygree site, both being despoiled by the same individuals with “reclamation” claims for doing so. If ever there was a Perry Mason needed to expose what was going on here- dumping a waste and being paid for doing so, whilst also claiming to be preparing the land for redevelopment at which point they would get a fat wedge for the sale- but only with planning permission in place of course.
The story from the 3rd March Express and Star describes how Mintworth had built up a “mini-mountain” of foundry sand, but the councillor- one Gill Geddes– elected as a very rare Conservative in the area of Tipton Green appears vacant of the facts of the case.
The first thing to state is that Mintworth were never “contractors”. They were entirely behind the dumping of foundry sand as tatters- recovering metal from the process for their own profit, and then dumping what they did not want as payment recovered from the foundry companies who paid them to do it. They make the point clear in a desperate charm offensive when they distributed material to local residents about what would unfold- but minus the reality of dust, delays and over tipping.
The Express and Star of 3rd March 1993 is off-piste of the facts of the case, which is the turds falling out of the mouth of Geddes.
“but it is not the contractors that I blame. They are forced to dump this waste because there is no where else to take it.”
WHAT ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS! Mintworth were not “forced” to dump this waste, they did it as their polluting business, creating nothing but “misery” at these two sites. Why should their activities supplant the quality of life for local residents? The comment by the SMBC representative is also telling in that there would be “room for the waste at rattlechain” and that activities would be “more closely monitored in future.” There was a fucking waste management licence at this site just like that at their other site that they were regularly breaching- where were the regulators and why did they not enforce the law and these licence conditions? Of course the problems only stopped when Mintworth abandoned the site without complying with any remediation of the waste mound they had left behind on top of an abandoned limestone mine!
A memo of note around this time to Tony Rice of SMBC from Clive Dutton of BCDC- an absolutely useless fucking twat held in high regard beyond belief in getting cushy civil service jobs, is interesting in terms of both of Mintworth’s sites. Again the lack of security is noted, as are Mintworth going “flat out”. It is noted that Dutton states that “this should trigger our enforcement strategy for Coneygree. I noticed yesterday that the mound is enormous and that plant is currently operating on its summit. ” He is unsure as to whether this was freshly tipped material or that supposedly going to “rattlechain”.
It is of course worth pointing out again that the BCDC were fully complicit in creating this farce. But why the lack of enforcement procedure , or even stripping the polluters of the licence altogether? Alexander Gibb were contracted by BCDC to monitor activities at the Duport’s tip/sewage works site, yet despite reporting multiple concerns, the BCDC only ever appeared to want to request meetings with Mintworth about these breaches.
Geddes’s area would include the Temple Way estate at this time in the Tipton Green ward- thus shifting piles from one side of the ward to another, and no wonder voters lanced her at the first opportunity, that is if she even stood again.
“Unlimited quantities”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Opinion- Is this the thickest councillor in Sandwell council’s 50 year history?
An advert from the Birmingham Post 1977. “Foundry and steelworks waste disposal specialist” LOL “All types of waste.” Double LOL. “UNLIMITED QUANTITY.” Triple LOL
Some people have absolutely no shame, no concern for the “misery” that they inflict on others with their actions of avarice, and are too conceited to even have their actions questioned or put under scrutiny because they believe themselves entitled and above the law because they find loopholes to exploit the weaknesses within it for all that they are worth.
I have no time for multinational global scum like those in the chemical industry who dumped and poisoned birds like Albright and Wilson/Rhodia and whose staff are compulsive odious liars who do not like to be “caught out”. But there are others like the conman, fraudster and criminal Sydney Sheldon who made much out of the remnants of post war industrialism by flogging off holes to be filled with waste demolition crap, and in particular foundry sand.
This material is shite. It was used as a filler because the industry that produced it wanted to offload their crap in huge amounts. So enter the goffer tatters with a tipper from the 1960’s who suddenly become fake “reclamation” experts and you see how organised fly tipping of an unwanted material with the auspices of a waste management licence made some entrepreneurs very rich men.
In a report written in 1978 as part of a structure plan for the county, it is revealed that the West Midlands area covered 89,000 hectares (22,000 acres), with approximately 9,000 industrial manufacturing companies. It notes “Many of these industrial processes, such as chemical and metal finishing, give rise to a wide range of wastes, which include highly toxic materials.”
It estimated from the survey that the West Midlands industry produced approximately 2,500,000 tonnes of waste! Of this some 480,000 tonnes were “hazardous wastes. “
The largest amount of waste it notes came from the Sandwell area in the form of foundry sand being produced from the manufacture of castings and slags from iron and steel production.
Birlee Industrial, fronted by John Stewart Hurst and Frank Ewart Pomlett were prominent in dumping this material in “unlimited quantities” as per the Birlee Industrial advert.
They occupied multiple areas- Birchfield Lane, Dudley Port, Coneygree Road and then more latterly Phoenix House in the aptly named CASTLE Street, and dumped in multiple sites and connections to these sites which I have looked at previously at Coneygree and of course the Duport’s Tip. But there are others, and one of interest that I will examine here. Obviously, “no valley was too deep or no mountain too high” for these clowns.
BUSTLEHOLME QUARRY
1977 Credit Black Country History in photos facebook
This site located in West Bromwich near to Walsall Road in Stone Cross and off Bustleholme Lane was a prior tipping point to their endeavours at Duport’s and Coneygree. Originally this appears to have been a sand quarry.
There is a little pre history to this dumping which I have found in The British Newspaper archive, and once again local residents were not happy with what took place or was planned to. The Sandwell Evening Mail of 26th April 1976 kicks us off.
RUBBISH!
This article explains the lie of the land as it then stood. The owners of the quarry were an outfit called “MIDLAND MOTOR CYCLE CYLINDER CO. LTD” supposedly based in Smethwick. One of the things you have to be careful of with the foundry sand dumpers was their love of phoenix company proxy shams and multiple “companies” under different names. I do not know what relationship existed between Birlee Industrial and this one, but maybe the bike bandits answered the ad at the top of the page? 😆
Of course we were now officially into the era of the useless West Midlands County Council and the Control of Pollution Act which saw the issuing of vaguely worded licences with an SL prefix headed by the moron Ken Harvey as County Waste Disposal officer.
The local residents fear what is to come- and so they should have in their comfortable but modest homes in which some had lived in throughout the Second World War. Quite frankly from what I have been told, I would have preferred to take my chances with the blitz to a latter day yellow digger down my way owned by Messrs Pomlett and Hurst. 😆 The craters alone from bomb placement would probably have been less damaging.
The loss of green space was even then worrying to them- well try seeing what is left now poor dears!
Of course the WMCC said “yes” to this, passing a site licence that would be titled SL88.
It was mentioned at the 20th October 1977 meeting of the waste disposal and pollution control committee and one of 35 sites that had been issued a licence at that point. I am a little suspicious of “BIR metals” as well to be honest.
We turn to our old friend showing multiple site licences for more info, (scroll down to cell number 9049).
Records show that this licence was issued on 15/2/1977, and that the first input of waste stated as being delivered on 28/ 2/1977.
Such waste disposal licences required a planning application by law to accompany them, and whilst I do not know if one was actually issued at this time, with waste already being dumped and moved around, as per the photo at the top of the page, it appears that the operation continued for some time before the end purpose was addressed.
According to Sandwell Council’s planning website, the following application DC14000 “Regrading and recontouring with erection of houses”was submitted on 11th September 1981.
Obviously for whatever reason this decision was not reached quickly. By 1982 as reported in 21st May Sandwell Evening Mail we see the process still ongoing and the fury of local residents who claim they had been conned by the sand men from Tipton.
Unfortunately, the political stunt of a “public meeting” was another charade by those in Sandwell council, belated playing to the gallery with the decision already having been in the bag from day one. The “skyscraper flats” referred to are still there, but now in garish multicoloured flavours that look terrible. The loss of open space so Cllr Bill Melia claimed had been promised to be left when the infilling was complete, but I think that you would have to be very naive to believe a couple of blokes with a tipper truck and a broad smile on a promise. 😳
A subsequent article in the same paper dated 29th June 1982 promised a “showdown” with council officers and planners and the aggrieved residents. The plan to build 60 homes on the 15 acre former void would be “thrashed out”. In reality of course, the locals would get fuck all say.
And sure enough, the publicity stunt meeting appeared to be advertised in the Evening Mail of July 14th stating that the application had been deferred at the planning meeting held in May.
The following month the can was kicked down the road again, or maybe the desert highway when it was stated that the planning meeting would give residents another say to reject the proposals. The 24th August Mail repeated the earlier comments of local councillors after votes and stated that the unanimous opposition to the homes scheme but that Birlee were now claiming that the majority of the site would remain “open space”. We would hear that one again elsewhere with the schemers behind this! They also use the tool of emotional blackmail stating that fly-tipping would occur if approval was not given. They would use this technique as well in the future, despite abandoning land and leaving it in a derelict state after “regrading and recontouring”- basically a ploy to dump more foundry sand and shift the piles around.
After the planning meeting the 26 August 1982, the paper reported that another gaslighting technique would be used- the full council vote, enabling those in planning to escape making a decision themselves. As for the site being left as “an eyesore” I do not know what fucking cheek these conmen were peddling here given their repeated method of doing just that. I have no doubt that promises were made to leave it as open space, but that was never the intention- just a foot in the door to avoid opposition at that time to tipping.
And so to the inevitable kick in the teeth. After the full council meeting procrastination the 13th October Mail reported on the council sell out. You do not have to be a genius to see how “The scheme was pushed through by council’s controlling Labour group.” to see how this corrupt party have done the same multiple times in this rotten borough for the last 50 years, ignoring petitions, their own “consultations” and sometimes even their own officers in the pursuit of rampant house building on green space. .
What happened next is a mystery to me as it appears that this outline application, and see above, was not decided until 2nd December 1985 according to the decision notice! The last claimed input of waste at the site is stated to be 1/4/1985- meaning that tipping had been continuing throughout the spun out planning homes saga- for a total of 8 years since the licence had been approved. This technique of playing for time with bullshit excuses and new proposals would become the standard MO of Pomlett and Hurst and their associate companies.
This licence confirms the correct date of issue of 15th February 1977, and bears the signature of the idiot Harvey. However despite being issued to the motor cycle outfit from Smethwick, it also has a stamp confirming transfer to Birlee Industrial on 22/6/1981, thus prior to the planning application. Birlee were obviously doing a job for the land owner company as they had at Duport’s Tip, but then acquired it for further gain.
This licence had 36 conditions, and I will highlight the most important ones starting with what was allowed to be deposited.
660, maybe they should have allowed another 6 to be generous 😈 were allowed to be dumped in the form of “foundry sand”, “foundry slags” and more concerningly “general rubbish”. You can see from such a vague description as to why these licences today cause problems , no less than the putrescible waste that was dumped at Duport’s tip that evolved landfill gas! Harvey’s WMCC was an utter joke with “control” of pollution and they did not control anything.
Most of the conditions are the standard fair that were duplicated on most of the licences such as hours of operation, and maintaining tidy conditions. There were however phased areas within the site which are shown in the drawing further on.
Condition 15 is where this gets interesting in terms of what I believe the local residents and councillors were talking about and the green space left at the end
Condition 27 is very interesting given the tatters and their metal reclamation from the foundry!
The final condition is that the licence was to be cancelled by 31/3/1982 with no more tipping.
I have scanned the plan below and compare this to the site photo taken in the same year when operations were clearly in progress. NB the photo is turned upside down to match the plan with the border with Walsall Road at the top.
NB This is upside down but I have corrected it below to compare with the map on the council website for DC/14000 area.
The licence confirms that two amendments were made to the licence, with the first being a time extension- something that would be frequently repeated with sites in the ownership of those in question. The new deadline issued to Birleee who had by this time assumed the licence was extended to October 31st 1982 by virtue of deleting condition 36 and replacing it with condition 37 bearing the new deadline.
The now replaced and deceased Ken Harvey was succeeded by the calamitously named Michael Jackson!
Note the Coneygre address
And shamone MF, Jackson would again fuck the community over by deleting this condition in the subsequent amendment deleting condition 37 on 15th March 1983– thus giving no end date at all for the boys from the sand stuff to end their tipping free for all!
One can see from this that this bungling waste of space authority were adapt at screwing people over in favour of continued pollution.
The licence at this site would not be surrendered until 31/12/1994, by which time Birlee Industrial had long morphed into the Mintworth brand
The houses built were perhaps the ironically named “Whitworth Drive” with a silent “s”, comprising 1-59 and 2-60. At the top of the square former quarry, some space was left as green space in a similar way to the Duport’s tip. This has since been called “Hayward’s nature area” and I did have to smile when I saw this sign prominently located on part of it. Remember the Birlee claims? 😛
Looks like a bit of sandy dust has blown onto it. LOL!
Cleaner one
Whitworth Drive, built on foundry sand dumping
THE OTHER SAND HOLES
It is interesting to see the cross over periods of dumping between these sites preceding or that were concurrent with the dire events at Duport’s and Coneygree.
Other sites having the Birlee touch and sometimes Mintworth glow are
OUNSDALE QUARRY
(Listed as Mintworth limited)
Licence number listed as 6/A/80/0172, B06, 9999/9737
South Staffordshire county council
Licence issued 16/2/1977
First input listed 31/1/1969
Last input not listed
Licence surrender 27/3/1991
QUARRY ROAD
Quarry Road, Dudley Wood, Cradley Heath, West Midlands
Listed as “Birlee Industries Ltd”
Licence SL236
Licence issued 28/2/1978
First input of waste 07/05/1978
Last input of waste 31/01/1980
No info regards licence surrender
BLOOMFIELD ROAD AJ MUCKLOWS SITE
Birlee Industrial Limited
Site Licence SL301
LICENCE ISSUED SURRENDERED FIRST INPUT LAST INPUT
13/11/1979
30/04/1994
31/12/1979
31/12/1984
HUNTINGTON FARM MUCH WENLOCK
Huntington Farm, Limekiln Lane, New Works Lane, Little Wenlock, Telford, Shropshire
Licence issued licence surrender First waste input
17/2/1978
31/7/1980
31/12/1969
As part of a planning application for the coneygree site, we get a precis of the activities of Birlee at Bustleholme but now assuming the name “Mintworth”, as though the newer concept was not distinct from the older version.
“The key to the success of Mintworth Limited has been tight control of the economics of land reclamation, in particular the processing of foundry sand waste to recover metal content and the haulage and controlled placing of inert fill by-products from the processing.”
In other words “tatting for metal” and dumping the rest in holes
“THEY DID WANT THEY WANT, AND THEY DID IT WITH PRIDE”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on INVESTIGATION AND OPINION- “Unlimited quantities”- The foundry sand dumping tatters
It started with the TEMPLE Way estate in the mid 1970’s by Charter Homes and it was clear that this estate built on a tipping free for all by the crooked scumbag criminal Sydney Sheldon would expand to accommodate more former agricultural land for housing. But who was this named after, as a newby to the area may be mistaken for thinking that the Balaji temple nearby was where it got its name. Not so, as this structure was commenced far more recently in 1992.
Henry John Temple, 3rd viscount Palmerstone was Prime Minister of this wretched country between 1855-1858 and 1859-1865. What is even worse is that he was the first Liberal Prime Minister. His father and therefore his whole family gained power through a rotten borough system of land ownership and the peerage system. Perhaps after all, naming the area estate after him was not out of place in the borough of Sandwell with Oldbury at its centre!
The bright idea therefore of this estate by those in the council was to choose British Prime Ministers as the names of the streets, with much later additions to those from the 1970’s continuing the leitmotiv of political heavyweight dross, but in their deluded eyes perhaps to gentrify the area with these “paragons of virtue”? Perhaps these were all free masons, that would not surprise me at all. 😉
Obviously, Lord Palmerstone as he was known gives its name to another extension street off Macdonald Close Palmerstone Drive. Shelbourne Close is named after William Petty who was the second earl of Shelburne though Sandwell council appear to have misspelt the name!
Macdonald Closeis named after the more recent Ramsey MacDonald, though without the capital D retained.
Of course we then have Gladstone Drive after Liberal William Gladstone, and Law Close after the short lived 7 month PM Bonar Law.
In between the two non consecutive terms of Gladstone there was three time Tory boy Robert Gasgoyne- Cecil ,which is where the name Cecil Drive comes in. Of course Peel Way gets its name from rozzer founder Robert Peel.
There is Balfour Drive which I declare is named after Arthur Balfour.
Another Cul-de-sac off Temple Way Russell Closeis named after the obscure Whig John Russell.
Peace time Stanley Baldwin has Baldwin Close named after him. One of the newer add ons to the estate is Campbell- Bannerman Way where Henry of the same double barrel gets the nod.
There are other streets on the estate which allude me Gordon Drive (the Scottish gold flogging goldfsh?) , Shinwell Crescent and Healey Drive, and not to mention Warwick Gardens, Cartwright Gardens, Hamilton Drive and Thornton Close on the periphery which may not have been named after number 10 Downing Street squatters. Answers on a postcard please if you can tell me anything about these origins. Were they that desperate that they named a street after eyebrows Dennis? Keir Hardie of Keir Hardie Walk fame was never a Prime Minister of this country, and neither was Hugh Gaitskell of Gaitskell Terrace though obviously the Labour lovies wanted to honour them as if they had been. By that token should we also have a “Duncan- Smith Drive” or a Pants down Way?
Surely there are ordinary people who were honest, did not lie and achieved something in their lives connected to the area they came from that deserved to have a historic recognition of a road named after them, where NONE OF THE NAMED ABOVE HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO THE AREA. But that is the problem of having politicians name streets, as they eulogise their own in death after knifing them in the back in life.
Of course, if this shite continues can we expect Thatcher Road, Major Grove, Johnson Crew, Truss Fold, Sunak Mews, Cameron Meadow, Brown Street and worst of all Blair Rise?
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Temple Way-Dead scumbags society- Why name streets after croaked politicians?
So the latest phase of this farce comes to a close with the “consultation” now over- 11th November.
Comments have been made regards several policies within the document as well as the housing allocations SH35 and SH36 on their unsoundness in the plan. I would like to thank all those who signed a new petition supporting this and hope that it will help to go some way into kicking this longstanding nonsense into touch once and for all.
At the heart of this scheme is the desire to move large amounts of over tipped foundry sand from one tip into another, dumped for profit at that time, into a vacant hole filled with toxic waste. The nature of the chemical within the lagoon make this impossible for safe development, but those behind the scheme only want that hole to serve as a cheap means of decanting the over tipped foundry sand into another pile so they can build on the waste that was moved off the former sewage works. It is a carousel FRAUD of “reclamation” that has been ongoing since the late 1980’s , and there are some people who remember what went on then and fear what could happen again when the dusts of time have settled and memories are a little faded. SO LEST WE FORGET.
1994 The blackened foundry sand hill should not be tipped into the toxic lagoon so houses can be built by conmen and liars
Claims that were made to attempt to link the two tips in 2011 at the site allocations examination have not materialised in the last 13 years, and yet, we just appear to be at the same drawing board stage as then expected to believe that something will be different by 2034- half way into the Sandwell plan period.
The flooding in Law Close which would occur again if the mountain was moved around
The dusts blowing into their properties and onto their cars
The statutory nuisance of vibrations when machinery shook their houses
The lack of interest from Sandwell council environmental health to the issues
The health impacts of breathing in foundry sand and other wastes blowing in the wind
The “two years” of operations on site that morphed into at least ten
The same bogus timescale being used again with a raft of excuses as to why extra time is needed- as per the section 73 applications that replaced another failed planning application condition- like a street whore dropping their drawers when a new car comes into view.
The lack of political interest in tackling the issues
The difficulties now in getting off the Temple Way estate by car
How that would be even more difficult when as now finding yourself in Gladstone Drive and Macdonald Close on the edge of the estate you suddenly find yourself in the new middle of it.
The loss of valued green space, especially as a means of escape during the fascistic “lockdown”
On the political note, I emailed 10 councillors in four different wards around the site and which if a new housing scheme went ahead of 500 plus extra houses would impact all of the wards of Great Bridge, Oldbury, Tividale and Tipton Green.
“Hi Ian,
Thank you for your email and letter. I would be more than happy to assist you in your opposition to this part of the local plan.
Just to confirm you have submitted a representation to the consultation?
Best
Will”
I got one decent response from Will Gill, above and thank him publicly for supporting local residents. Do remember that silence is support for the other side, and not for the people who will be impacted and also that all of these councillors will be up for election in 2026, and please do vote out the silent ones when the opportunity arises- they are not on your side.
Sandwell council live in fantasy land with their statements in the sustainability report mentioning these two sites.
Good luck trying to “resolve” the constraints.
Oh there are “some issues” with ground conditions LOL
All of this will go to a public examination next year in a process framed under planning presumption in favour of development and to a supposedly “independent” planning inspector. Whatever happens then, I say this to those who are proposing this scheme.
I will be coming out swinging.Never before will you have encountered scrutiny and criticism like that you will be facing from me, and I will call out your bullshit phoney consultants and their “pre-loading” fucking shite to their face, reminding the inspector of the previous mounds of foundry sand they claimed could be reclaimed in the same way at Coneygree and Shidas Lane, (and this same not materialised hair brained scheme they proposed in 2011 that could be achieved by 2021), and just ended up as costs to the public purse down the line.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Sandwell Local Plan- closing thoughts
The Sandwell Local Plan (SLP) is a manifesto for house building and offers nothing for wildlife or its remaining fragmented habitat. Unfortunately it mirrors a national policy made by corrupt political scum of all main parties who have made it this way by classifying wildlife in terms of “units” and “credits” which are transferable to tick a box. We are therefore introduced to the terms “biodiversity net gain”, “biodiversity credits” and “nature recovery strategy maps” which are meaningless theoretical bollocks allowing desk jockeys for environmental consultancies (planning enablers), with not much time on their hands to spend outdoors, but plenty of time to drink their lattes in a cosy warm office preparing shite like this.
Two terms are defined and are important to this post, but they are largely theoretical and wordy . I have underlined the statement below which is crucial.
Biodiversity net gain definition
“An approach to development and land management that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand. The objective requires the biodiversity value attributable to a development to exceed pre-development biodiversity value by at least 10%. Post-development biodiversity value may comprise onsite habitat, offsite biodiversity gain and biodiversity credits.”
Nature Recovery Network definition
“An expanding, increasingly connected, network of wildlife-rich habitats supporting species recovery, alongside wider benefits such as carbon capture, water quality improvements, natural flood risk management and recreation. It includes the existing network of protected sites and other wildlife rich habitats as well as and landscape or catchment scale recovery areas where there is co ordinated action for species and habitats.”
The SNE2 policy that the council have produced in the SLP is shown below and explains their rationale.
I put in an FOI to Sandwell council regards the nonsense they had spouted about certain sites they had considered in a cabinet report prior to the publication of the current plan out for consultation. I wanted to know which consultancy had drawn up the garbage as well as the methodology used to produce the eight listed sites.
The council replied and gave me a link to the study below conducted by an entity called “Lepus consulting” who also are behind the sustainability appraisal for the SLP.
So let us interrogate this document and see it for what it is, which is a very weak report full of theory, very little practical surveying and omissions of certain sites which do not make sense.
“Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) has commissioned Lepus Consulting to undertake a study to identify and undertake an assessment of habitats within council-owned sites in Sandwell to establish their suitability for use as potential habitat banks for the delivery of BNG.”
The first thing to point out is that SMBC ignore privately owned sites- the ones that are most likely to be built upon and which are also the most likely to be destroy wildlife habitat that has naturally re-wilded, like the ones off Rattechain SH35 and SH36.
“In the State of the Nature Report in 2019 headline data indicated that the abundance and distribution of the UK’s biodiversity has, on average, declined since 1970, with a 13% decline in average species abundance3 . This is attributable to a number of pressures including intensive farming, climate change and urbanisation which have led to pollution, habitat loss and degradation.”
I do not argue with their opening statements, but the threat of “urbanisation” is exactly what the SLP is proposing in real terms.
We learn that Sandwell has nine nature reserves, including Sheepwash which is also a SINC but looking at a map of these sites on page 32 of the PDF you can see how grossly disproportionate nature reserves are in Sandwell with only one in Tipton and none at all in Wednesbury, Smethwick or Oldbury- this makes up four of Sandwell’s six towns!
Why is West Bromwich stacked with nature reserves and little elsewhere?
The meat on the bones of this pathetic report is revealed at 6.2 onwards.
They only visited sites once due to “time constraints” Why is time a factor in this report, as it seems that this was done by the council on the hoof to attempt a hurried justification of coming up with random sites they could use.
They visited in the summer months when nature is probably at its most secretive with increased footfall of people. Different species are obviously present at different times of year, and passage migrant species do not appear to have even come into the equation of “biodiversity”.
They do not appear to have used any Eco record reports, or local information of groups like sandnats, or certainly Friends of Sheepwash to inform their observations or knowledge of sites. They undertook no “bio-blitz” of any site.
They could not even map some areas
They do not even attempt to investigate water habitats at all, again due to “time constraints”.
“Further assessments” needed- because theirs was not good enough.
The worst part about this whole “strategy” is the failure to even look at privately owned sites. These are the ones of course like SH35 and SH36 on the doorstep of Sheepwash and in the nature recovery area map that the council expect will be boosted by a 10% increase in on site biodiversity. Has it not occurred to these idiots that they do not have any knowledge of what nature exists on these sites but they expect developers will be honest about what is there so that their paid liars of environmental consultants will produce a report claiming that they can boost BNG by 10% by creating a token hedge or swale (dirty surface water ditch ) like the one on the picture below?
Don’t try and tell me this has any nature value FFS. It’s a dirty fucking ditch!
The cracker can best be described a “a pikey horse and car dumping shithole”. There is no point boosting biodiversity in such a place as the frequent weed dumping disposal in buckets is the only thing growing there, and they have only created this for political reasons due to Princes End ward being a swing seat area.
The Menzies open space contains the contaminated Millpool or Milky- contaminated by Bitumenous waste that was not prevented from being further polluted ironically when the site was turned into housing! The remediation fraud of the developers were not protected by any body including the EA and the useless officers at Sandwell council, harming wildlife and causing significant pollution to an already contaminated water body. The cover up by all concerned was massive and a disgrace.
I set the Millpool story out in four parts which offer definitive proof of why post reclamation of industrial sites and brownfield land destroys nature and habitat.
Of course Lepus know nothing of this as they do not have time, but do not even look at improving the water habitat at the pool either!
There is no explanation as to why private sites were not identified as habitat banks or even surveyed.
There has to be concern that this very point has already surfaced with the planning application at the Coneygree site in Tipton- owned by the same entity who now proposes sites SH35 and SH36 and previously by the conmen foundry sand dumpers who abandoned it and left both sites in the state they are in and future dependent on money from the public purse.
The council had no policy when this farce unfolded due to national policy failure, but they do not appear to recognise they will have no basis of knowledge as to the real nature value of these private sites.
As it is, we are aware that the former Duport’s Tip area next to Rattlechain contains a rare butterfly- the small blue, (Cupido minimus), Britain’s smallest butterfly as well as the associated kidney vetch which its caterpillars eat. It is protected in the UK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 and a priority species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. I had a site walkover with naturalist Darrell Harrison who found the butterfly and several unusual plants on the site of local rarity.
Small blue on kidney vetch Darrell Harrison seen at the SH35 area in June 2024.
Of course such sites already connected to Sheepwash and the wildlife corridor of the canal could be used as habitat banks, but if only someone would tell Sandwell council that instead of wanting to shove more trees into dog shit parks like Tividale to tick a box.
It is also interesting that just this week the leader of Sandwell council has proposed an animal welfare taskforce policy. I have concerns that this will be nothing more than a pontificating talking shop like the unsound policy SNE2 above, but what is interesting is one of the claims in the new vision Notice of Motion – 29 October 2024.
With just three weeks to go to make comments on the final version of the toxic Sandwell Local Plan, for some reason the council decided to give us another week to November 11th to submit comments. By then maybe some people will have been able to read through the 418 page plan and the many appendices and “evidence” PDF’s included.
If you have time on your hands then please do read it at the link below.
Of course, this volume is off putting, and designed so that people will not even bother. Well, you should bother because this may be the only opportunity to make objections with the crazed Labour Government shilling house building programme for the construction industry.
I’ve read the whole thing and the only paragraph of note which mentions Rattlechain within the main 418 leaf tomb is on Page 63 at paragraph 3.47
“3.47 Residential development is anticipated at Rattlechain, south of Sheepwash Nature Reserve. This would see the remediation of a long-standing, problematic and heavily contaminated site, with it brought back into more efficient use and being able to assist in meeting the shortfall in housing numbers. The vision for the Dudley Port area is directed by a Garden City approach and principles, working with the area’s existing attributes, namely the green space, canals and linkages.”
This is where you can comment and object IF you create an account via the council’s preferred way for you to comment. DO NOTE HOWEVER THAT DESPITE THEIR LENGTHY DOCUMENT, THEY ONLY OFFER YOU THE CHANCE OF LIMITED WORDS.
I would ignore this, and instead use a form below which you should keep a copy of and submit asking for a receipt, or even take it into the office at Sandwell council and ask for one when handing it over. Do not trust SMBC ever with things such as this.
The email address to return these to is below, before 11th November remember.
Sandwell_LocalPlan@sandwell.gov.uk or post it to Sandwell Local Plan, Planning Policy,
Sandwell Council House, Freeth Street, Oldbury, B69 3DE.
On the form Remember to put “LOCAL PLAN” as to Title of document you are commenting on and 3.47 as to the paragraph you are commenting on.
The most relevant part of the attached documents is the appendices at a mere 147 pages 😥 where the nitty gritty of the controversial housing allocations are made. I would start with reading that, which you can find below, and see further on in this post for the most relevant material. PLEASE COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM TO OBJECT TO HOUSING ALLOCATIONS SH35 AND SH36.
This is where the matter becomes more complicated in that even though the area around Rattlechain lagoon and the totally separate entity of the Former Duport’s Tip is “a crap site for residential”, the way in which these consultations are constructed is one in which legal compliance, (of course made by a bunch of corrupt scumbags) and “soundness” are tested- in theory by a Bristol based planning inspector next year at a public enquiry. Don’t worry about that, I’ve got that covered, I just need the support in getting there and putting across just how unpopular and ridiculous this idea is to build houses in such an area.
The following definitions of “soundness” are used.
In your response in the forms tick UNSOUND.
Why is it unsound bullet points=
It is not positively prepared
The claim that one site “rattlechain” is deliverable and that it is “anticipated” is not a robust proof that it is. The site is in two separate ownerships, with the one- Rattlechain lagoon still a hazardous waste site with an environmental permit that has not been remediated.
The council at 3.47 do not distinguish between rattlechain lagoon and the surrounding land in separate ownership which was used as a foundry sand dumping free for all by the company Mintworth who abandoned the land. The main reason for this is that foundry sand was classified as a waste material meaning paying significant tax to continue to dump it, as was the case with their site at Coneygree which is also over tipped and not remediated. The two sites, liquid landfill containing white phosphorus and the dry mound containing the sewage works waste, foundry sand and mixed materials are not compatible and nor do they have a shared recent history- certainly never for tipping purposes to which the council refer. The contamination in both sites is different and cannot be dealt with by filling a hole in with a mound to deliver homes.
At the previous examination in 2011 where the other part (former Duport’s Tip and Mintworth’s foundry sand “private open space”, it was discovered that Rhodia’s relationship with including the land was “passive”, and that their consultants did not consider it technically feasible to tip waste from the other side into the lagoon.
The development constraints on both sites have not been objectively assessed.
It is not justified
The two sites are not joined, share no common recent history as tips and contain unsuitable materials to mix together.
White phosphorus contained in rattlechain lagoon is present in tens of tonnes, and is currently still under water. When exposed to air this chemical emits toxic gases and can remain in sediments in areas such as this for thousands of years. The lack of detail at this stage of how this site could possibly be remediated within the timescale of just 10 years, belies the fact that in the last 13 years since the previous examination, there appears to be no further way forward at including the lagoon when the current owners are at the base starting point of “discussions” and non existent “master plans”. It is just a bluffing exercise to include a vacant hole to tip their problem over tipped mound into.
Rhodia claimed that landfill gas was being emitted from the other side of their lagoon and entering their site.
The existing area in Temple Way is not a “garden city” but a concrete car park with few gardens. The council’s claim of incorporating existing green space is utter nonsense.
The loss of green space and the intensive housing capacity which is totally unrealistic of 500 houses is not within any definition of what a “garden city principle” is.
It is not effective
As stated before, this area is not deliverable for housing by 2041, and previous evidence shows that it was not deliverable by 2021 when it was claimed by agents of the site owners that it was. Thirteen years after this, we appear to be at the drawing board “discussions” phase with no realistic prospect of development.
Sandwell Council SWOT analysis (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and Threats) identified that there were significant contamination issues with this site and also the one at Coneygree which is owned by the same entity based in Hampton in Arden.
Why should this company propose allocations which cannot be paid for by themselves, and the remediation costs met by the tax payer and not the polluter?
The constraints are too great for sustainable development.
It is not consistent with national policy, or even the council’s own policy, both existing and proposed in this plan-
This document is another long read with many contradicting paragraphs. The most important however in respect of unsoundness of the Sandwell plan and site allocations SH35 and SH36 are ”
Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);
d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;
e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans;
and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate”
Obviously the impact of this development would harm the existing biodiversity at the site as well as Sheepwash, a SINC and Nature Reserve. Pollution and the foundry sand issues encountered by residents in the 90’s would again cause serious impacts to land , air and water.
I will be looking at the wildlife/habitat issues in a separate post.
“Habitats and biodiversity
To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity65; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation66;
and b) promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.”
“Ground conditions and pollution
Planning policies and decisions should ensure that: a) a site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation (as well as potential impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation); b) after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and c) adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is available to inform these assessments.
Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.
Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life ; b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”
The contamination issues at this site are unmapped and impossible to mitigate with people living on the doorstep of the lagoon. Dewatering a site containing white phosphorus has not been attempted before with people living as close. In the US at Idaho, a similar lagoon set up required the US EPA to intervene when phosphine gas was emitted. The nearest inhabitants lived 2km away.
The foundry sand at this site is unstable and evidence of this is shown by it leaching into the Rose Lane tunnel over many years. Two rights of way were substantially blocked by the foundry sand dumping and are no longer navigable without being formally diverted along a dangerous drop off Macdonald Close. The landowner has failed to remedy this, as did Mintworth over decades. It should also be stated that Sandwell Council has also totally failed to commence enforcement action with pathetic excuses as to why.
The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.
THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT THE EA HAVE FAILED OVER DECADES TO ADEQUATELY MONITOR AND DEAL WITH THIS SITE. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE DEAD BIRDS WE REPORTED AND HAD TO PROVE DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE FUCKING CRAP THEY ALLOWED UNDER LICENCE. SANDWELL COUNCIL HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO STOP DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE SITE AND NOW ENCOURAGE THEM.
Site housing allocations.
As stated before, please complete a separate form each for SH35 AND SH36.
On the title ofdocument you are commenting on put “local plan appendices allocation SH35 and SH36 Pages 16-17.
Use the same tests of unsoundness as above. This is dogmatic , but do realise that not objecting will be taken as support.
We have spoken to many people on the estate in recent weeks, and some are clueless as to the history of the area and the threats which await. Some remember the dark days of tipping and have shared their stories with us. People who live outside of the area, or spend half the year in Spain and invest money in The Caymen Islands do not give a shit about our area, the health of local people and the impacts that their avarice has caused. IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE WHO DO LIVE IN THIS AREA TO STOP THEM, AS WHO ELSE WILL FOR THE NEXT GENERATION………………….?
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Dummies guide to objecting to The Sandwell Plan
The Sandwell Plan and the ludicrous inclusion of two areas including Rattlechain lagoon for 500 plus houses impact three if not four wards in the borough, Great Bridge, Oldbury, Tividale and Tipton Green. With boundary changes proposed for 2026, it may be the case that the lagoon ends up in Tividale ward.
I have written to the nine councillors in the first three wards, and also Richard Jeffcoat independent councillor in Tipton Green. You can read this submission below. Relevant links are included within the text for receipts and clarification.
Alternatively, if you live in these these wards and are aggrieved at the loss of green space this will entail, then please do get in touch with the councillors via email addresses below before the close of The Sandwell Plan consultation on 4TH NOVEMBER 2024.
All of these councillors are likely at present to be up for election in 2026 and well before the likely hood of any plans for the destruction of this area. Please respectfully make your views and objections known.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Dear Councillors…….
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
