Oldbury’s acid bath lake 2- The infilling farce

 

This is the second of three posts concerning this abandoned former waste disposal lake in Oldbury, the first of which can be read HERE. It also serves as a warning about the so called “brownfield” sites promoted by certain politicians using public money to put right dire private company charades.

The demise of Accles and Pollock, and their “Apollo Sports” brand appears to have affected their operations at their Paddock works lagoon site in terms of limiting their activities. I am not sure however as to why it had apparently appeared to have been allowed to have continued for so long- especially after the creation of the Environment Agency in 1996.

In apparent receivership, their receivers PWC were sent the following Section 41 notice by The Environment Agency on 12/2/2002.

SECTION41 NOTICE

This appears to be more about failure to pay the EA money, rather than failure to operate such a disgusting site (which was the regulator’s failure), to the tune of £33,225. This suspended the licence to tip waste until the debt had been paid.

 

Some relevant information is contained in the Companies house receivers report (April 2000) below.

companies_house_document

 

 

Concern had been expressed however publicly about this mothballed site well before the EA stepped in as debt collectors. The following article is taken from the 29/5/2001 Express and Star where Conservative Councillor Bill Archer was calling for a probe into the acid waste lagoon. It is interesting to note that Bill Archer was a Wednesbury councillor, but at this time got involved in many areas where the local labour councillors failed to act or ask any questions. I would state that in Oldbury ward, there were and remain many questions about such historic hazardous waste dumps, and the way in which they have been effectively abandoned, and why political action or criticism of these industrial concerns has been so mute?

The article confirms that the company had gone bust in 2000, but the lagoon and its contents had sat idle. The EA claim that no leakage into controlled waters had taken place, but I am somewhat sceptical that the EA were even monitoring for this given their officer’s abysmal record at the time at rattlechain lagoon as well as elsewhere in the local area.

Local environmental campaigner Fred Hadley had found that permission to tip at the site was still valid, despite the company no longer being active. The EA confirmed that the licence had not been surrendered. (I have never been sure as to if this Fred Hadley was the same ex-employee of Albright and Wilson, but perhaps not).

“Anybody could buy it and carry on dumping.”

The article also states the quantities of materials allowed to be deposited.

• 396 tonnes of hydrochloric acid
• 15 tonnes of sulphuric acid
• 900 tonnes of acid and polluted water.

The failure of Sandwell council to comment is also noted in this regard, when they allowed the said operation to continue for many years. 

Fred Hadley had in fact been involved in other matters in the local area including Allsopps Quarry. He also spoke out about the tipping misery continuing at the former Duport’s tip development area by rattlechain lagoon being extended. It is therefore quite ironic as to what transpired with the acid lake next, and the man must be hailed as some form of prophet in this regard, as someone did come along and dump more waste, that entity being the same one who had despoiled the land at both Coneygree in Tipton, as well as the site he had commented on in Tividale.

In 2004 Mintworth appeared on the scene, obviously looking for a brand-new dumping opportunity to offload more sand and associated into a vacant hole. They had at this point remember achieved their twin peaks in the local area already with Duport and Coneygree, (without finalising either for anything), but why not go for the triple!

This application would be numbered DC/04/42934. 

It is interesting to note that in correspondence form B submitted with this application, the owners of the site are listed as “CLEEVE INVESTMENTS LIMITED”– a company registered in Jersey. But who exactly were their directors? We will look at this company and their activities in the third part of this instalment. 

It appears from correspondence that early discussions and meetings had taken place with some of the key players in the SMBC planning department at this time, principally John “it’s a crap site for residential” Baylay, and Tony Rice. Both of these individuals would be heavily involved with Mintworth’s desire to acquire planning permission to build houses on the former Tividale sewage works, (“the crap site for residential”), and the council opposition to this in light of the adjacency to rattechain lagoon. This matter was ongoing at this time, and there is no doubt that solicitors acting for Mintworth are mischievous in their line of questioning in attempting to trip up the SMBC planning duo in respect of this, using this separate planning application vehicle.

There is no mention of “calcium phosphate sludge” being used at all at the Apollo lagoon in its entire history, and this was never a part of the waste from this site. It is of course a reference to the fake waste profile put forward by Albright and Wilson/ Rhodia at rattlechain- which was heavily contaminated by other hazardous chemicals mixed in with this. This is a pathetic question from this law firm, as is the lead on about restoration. Neither has anything to do with this application- and not of rattlechain either. They are not therefore “SEPARATE AND DISCRETE MATTERS” but a ruse to be used at a future planning enquiry against the council.

There is then the bizarre claim that Mintworth were considering tipping asbestos waste at this site, which I think is absolute bollocks. There is obviously more at play with this question, and I am not entirely sure what they were getting at here in respect of the Apollo lagoon itself. The council would be very unlikely to grant such permission for this type of material, or if the EA would even allow it either.

 

Robert Lee of SMBC eventually wrote a reply to this nonsense in September, perhaps thinking carefully about the answers and in light of the fact of the ongoing issue with the council’s refusal of the sewage works scheme and upcoming planning enquiry.

The points to take here are

• There is no established use for this site, which preceded the 1948 Town and Country Planning Act.
• The theoretical dumping of asbestos would need a planning permission.
• The council had contacted the environment agency who were seeking more information about their plans.
• Lee ends on the note that responses were given in “good faith”, knowing full well they would be taken and used against the council in the future by the recipients without a doubt.

 

In the following letter dated 16th March 2004, the EA responds to John Baylay , this deals with calcium phosphate, (nothing to do with this application whatsoever) but is interesting in its statements from a rattlechain perspective.

DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_COMMENTS-449611

 

The type of material deposited in rattlechain lagoon was from the waste processes of their factory site, and so would be classed as “hazardous waste” given that it contained just that. The percentage within that is irrelevant, as is the fact that if this were pure calcium phosphate- a commercial material as highlighted, Rhodia would not be throwing it away but selling it. As the process of recovery of this material is not cost effective, it means that the sludge is hazardous. This little stunt from Mintworth and their solicitors was not really very clever and did not help their cause.

There are reasons why Mintworth were pursuing this (i) Mintworth trying to get an opinion on the nature of waste they claimed was being dumped at rattlechain from the EA/council perspective.

(ii) to overcome Rhodia’s/Eversheds objections potentially to the sewage works scheme- they would have another alternative site to dump into- as a potential land exchange deal with Mintworth?

(iii) Did they think that they could fill the Apollo lagoon with calcium phosphate themselves as a side line?

The application details are listed below. N.B The “inert material” is not specified, but we all know that it would not be cottage cheese.  😆

There is very little information provided in the received form dated 6th July 2004, especially as to what end use was being considered.

DC_04_42934-FULL__MAJOR_-616265

A supporting letter from the agent of Bea Landscape Design, whom I believe have direct family connection to those at Mintworth can be read below.

DC_04_42934-SUPPORTING_LETTER_FROM_AGENT-449610

The proposed contours of BEA can be found below.

DC_04_42934-PROPOSED_CONTOURS-22681

There is a transport statement submitted which can be read below about how the proposed material would be delivered to the site, in light of it being in a major commercial vehicle and business area- not least the council tip over the road.

DC_04_42934-SUPPORTING_LETTERS-449609

There are two interesting observations in this document-

(i) the proposed number of loads infilling this site per hour at 15, though it is not stated where they were coming from or from what distance- this causing more issues outside of the immediate area itself?

(ii) The proposed timescale that the works would be taking place in- i.e “between 3 and 4 years”. We of course know Mintworth’s failure to deliver schemes to planning permission timescale at both Coneygre, and certainly at the Duport/sewage works debacle which lasted over twice as long as proposed– and so it would prove with this also!

The council appeared to have their own concerns, and these were allegedly updated in 2005, which can be read below.

DC_04_42934-TRANSPORT_STATEMENT_ADDENDUM-449604

Once again, we get yet another report from Sladen Associates, (yawn) who appear in every Mintworth planning application praising the benefits of tipping foundry sand into holes, without any apparent fallout or concern in doing so.

There is a history of the site blended with a very basic summary of the “acidic” water they claim was dumped into here. As evidenced by the site licence, there was far more going on than this, but this didn’t suit the proposal to infill.

More concerningly, we get exactly the same delay at dealing with mine shaft issues and settlement as I have seen with the planning applications at Coneygree. Sladen claim that these aspects are not important for this application, yet they are because you do not just go to the effort of offloading something into a hole without some end purpose in mind? Or do you if you are just dumping a waste material?

They note “potential” for some ground and ground water contamination  🙄 and even have the guile to mention foundry sand, so oft used by their clients for similar schemes, and note the contamination of this sand with metals and organic binders. This had been pointed out in fact to their clients during discussions about the “rattlechain tip” licence in the early 1990’s.

Due to the poor controls discussed before in the weak licence for this site from 1978, and of course for decades of no licence prior to this, I think the word “potential” is rather disingenuous.

There is then the long enviro check report, which as ever pads out such reports. The most interesting thing regards this is the fact that the site is confirmed to be on top of a historic landfill site SL137, that we know of course the licence of which had never been surrendered. It is worth once again reading the licence and what it allowed, though Sladen omit such matters.

Shidas Lane lagoon waste management licence and modifications

DC_04_42934-PRELIMINARY_GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL_ASSESSMENT-22679

The following method statements were also submitted by Sladen.

DC_04_42934-ATTACHMENT_A_METHOD_STATEMENT-907300

This dealt with the three mine shafts, which it considered “not practicable to treat” prior to infilling. Why not? One would note if this was widely adopted methodology, as to why their clients had failed to achieve this at their Coneygree site, where they were also advising them in planning applications.

Further descriptions are given as to the placement of the fill which can be read below.

DC_04_42934-ATTACHMENT_B_METHOD_STATEMENT-907301

A diagram of this method statement is shown below.

DC_04_42934-PROPOSED_LAGOON_INFILLING_WORKS-907302

Though Sladen describe not disturbing the sludge within the lagoon, I am not sure that they adequately characterise what they are actually filling over.

The Environment Agency responded to the consultation below in a letter dated 23/8/2004. Their only comments at this time were standard drainage and pollution prevention issues.

DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_COMMENTS-449611

Further letters would be received from them inviting further questions of the applicants. The letter of 30/3/2005 stated that there was a “previous” site licence which had been “disclaimed” by the liquidators.

It would therefore require a new PPC permit to undertake any infilling. They also anticipated some form of conditions to prevent pollution of contaminated lagoon water to ground water or surface waters.

DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_CONSULTATION-449606

A further letter dated 19/5/2005 states that they had reviewed the Sladen report but had asked additional questions concerning the PPC permit which had not yet been received.

DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_CONSULTATION-449625

The committee report of May 18th 2005 saw the following report written by John Baylay.

DC_04_42934-COMMITTEE_REPORT_AND_SUPPORTING_PLANS-176930

DC_04_42934-COMMITTEE_REPORT-158331

This decision was deferred for further information and came back on 31/8/05.

This states that the initial infilling would be with sand, yet no further information regards what was to be deposited on top of this were included. It is stated that it would not be “waste”, yet of course, foundry sand is nothing other than a waste material, and so I am not sure why Baylay et al had not challenged or asked this point to be clarified, particularly knowing exactly what Mintworth were well known for. It is further stated that the infilling would be to the levels of the surrounding land- and we of course know that Mintworth never do that as Baylay was well aware FFS!

The contaminated land team at SMBC even asked what the inert materials were on 18/5 committee report. No answer came as Baylay’s updated report states

 

 

DC_04_42934-COMMITTEE_REPORT_AND_SUPPORTING_PLANS-176930

Unsurprisingly of course, the application was passed with 22 conditions attached.

DC_04_42934-GRANT_PERMISSION_SUBJECT_TO_CONDITIONS-178522

Some of these specified that the applicants needed to state what the materials were, as well as not exceeding the proposed levels. Condition 18 especially should be noted.

“18. The finished levels shall not exceed those shown on the approved plans”

Some time passed before Sladen Associates letter regarding the conditions. This is dated 31st January 2006, and we finally are told that the inert material was to be “clean crushed rock sand” and not foundry sand. Mintworth would be starting dumping in the next month.

Also please note that they “agreed” to condition 18 in that the levels would not be exceeded, and thus committed to this condition without excuses being made. The fact that they were seeking for the conditions to be discharged after agreeing would be shown to be a disingenuous lie on that basis.

DC_04_42934-DISCHARGE_OF_PRELIMINARY_CONDITIONS_LETTER-907299

The EA response was pretty short. Given their experiences with this company over the previous two decades, was it really believable that they would comply with the conditions as passed? Past experience had shown that NOT to be the case.

Another email however from a P Langford in SMBC stated that there were still points of concern regards the works.

DC_04_42934-FURTHER_INFO_REGARDING_DISCHARGE_OF_CONDITONS_LETTER-907297 (1)

Similarly, the contaminated land team in Sandwell, who of course we know are shit, also had very little to say. All they appear to be interested in are theoretical reports claiming that nothing is amiss with the works. It is exactly this type of exercise as to why there is so much contaminated land in Sandwell to start with. As it is, I am not convinced that the likes of Baylay et al would have even studied or bothered to read or challenge anything in such, given their previous failures to do so.

DC_04_42934-CONSULTATION_RESPONSE-907293

John Baylay wrote to Sladen on 20/3/2006 confirming the discharge of several conditions.

DC_04_42934-CONFIRMATION_OF_DISCHARGE_OF_CONDITIONS-907305

We can see that in 2006, a perimeter track present around the lagoon, and infilling works apparently proceeding. As with their other sites, the greenery around the lake has been destroyed.

The following month reveals even further demise of the surroundings and the pool receding under the dune sands of Mintworth.

By 2007, as with every other Mintworth operation in the local area, there appear to have been complaints as to their methods of on site operation, as the letter below from Sandwell Council perfectly demonstrates- remember the 3-4 year timeframe for completion? Concern was expressed about the offsite spoil they were making being a danger to the highway.

By August of that year, the lagoon had dried up completely to be replaced by the vacuous mess below. The Mintworth mud pie was not getting any better and a collection of ramshackle sheds and vehicles appear to be collecting on the site.

But yet the tipping continued, well past the date it should have stopped, and well over the levels approved under the planning conditions years earlier, and which their technical agents Sladen Associates had “agreed” to- thus making both their words absolute lies and bullshit. Mintworth had once again flouted planning permissions as they had at both Rattlechain Tip (Duport’s tip in reality), and at Coneygree.

Their answer to this was once again to abuse the planning process with yet more excuses in the form of another planning application for retrospective permission.

DC/10/52117 | Variation of condition 18 of planning permission DC/04/42934 (Infill of lagoon with inert materials) to allow for the temporary raising of the approved levels so that on the land additional fill can be placed to surcharge the infill material to achieve sufficient bearing capacity. | Apollo Lagoon On The North Side Of Shidas Lane Oldbury

Condition 18 of the 2004 planning permission was remember thus:

“18. The finished levels shall not exceed those shown on the approved plans”

The initial contact sheet being handled by “Bea Landscape Design” shows their client of the same Wolverhampton address as the misspelt “Minworth Limited”. 

DC_10_52117-INITIAL_REGISTRATION_SHEET-616625

The new contour drawing by BEA is noted in that the client is now “Cleeve Investments Limited”.

DC_10_52117-PROPOSED_CONTOUR_PLAN__A1_-418293

Bea also provided a bullshit letter admitting that the loads brought onto the site had breached planning permissions. The tall story stated that the ground bearing capacity to enable future development was not satisfactory meaning that more weight from infill materials had been placed. This therefore means that Sladen Associates original engineering forecast was shite, and in that they were not competent to agree to such conditions to start with and had also misled the planning authority to discharge condition 18 on that basis. One could argue if they or their clients ever intended to stick to that condition to start with, I would say not based on their previous behaviour at their other sites where they had instigated the same modus operandi.

DC_10_52117-SUPPORTING_LETTER-418292

The planning application form is once again interesting in that the named owner of the site is the Jersey registered address for “Cleeve Investments Limited.”

DC_10_52117-SEC73M_-_MAJOR_-_VARIATIONS_OF_PERMISSIONS-606999

The council wrote to the agents stating that the application was incomplete given that the site plan was not provided. I actually wonder here if the council were getting them to commit to a red line area given their clients tendency to operate outside of agreed parameters for dumping more than agreed?

This was then supplied.

DC_10_52117-LOCATION_PLAN_-_A4-434518

John Baylay then wrote again on 9/8/2010 requesting more information and a number of technical questions, probably in full knowledge of the absolute bullshit for which this company were known for requesting more time, breaching the original conditions, breaching agreed revised conditions and then coming up with another bullshit excuse for failing in that before finally abandoning the site completely.  He asked them to respond within 14 days, and yet that did not happen.

DC_10_52117-FURTHER_INFORMATION_REQUIRED-616602

The EA response was a typical wash their hands of this situation in that they state that the drainage officer at the council should comment on the flooding issues of muddy water run off that were resulting from the elevated unapproved levels at the site.

DC_10_52117-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_CONSULTATION-616633

On September 15th 2010 Baylay took this application to committee, without having anything of substance from the applicants. At this stage, the application should have been rejected, especially given that he was in full knowledge of the conditions breach and that this had been happening for some time. This application was very much on his watch, as the ones at Duport’s Tip and Coneygree had also been on his watch and Sandwell Council had failed to sufficiently monitor for, with the applicants taking the piss with every one.

DC_10_52117-COMMITTEE_REPORT___SUPPORTING_DOCUMENTS-445648 (2)

Baylay states that the original approved levels had been exceeded by eight metres! I mean this is the height of a three story house for fucks sake, what the hell were the planning authority monitoring? The amount of sand defies belief in that this was NOT a waste material that was being offloaded on the cheap in bulk for extra income.

It is stated that the owner of the adjacent Percy Business Park had objected to the proposals given that he had been suffering loss due to the Mintworth operations flooding the area and had been raising this for some time. This therefore confirms, that just like the residents of two estates Baylay et al from SMBC could not have given a fuck about those concerns and instead batted for the highly dubious infiller. He doubted that the levels would be removed, and that the application timescale would be adhered to- a wise man given the knowledge of the previous Baylay/SMBC approved applications at other sites.

Despite this, the application appears to have been deferred for more information.

On 13/10/10, some two months after Baylay had requested a two-week response BEA replied to the questions asked.

DC_10_52117-RESPONSE_TO_REQUEST_FOR_INFORMATION-617013

It is interesting to note that Sladen Associates were not providing any monitoring results for this for question three, but rather John Hurst of Mintworth. I would question if the results from the client were sufficiently independently valid?  🙄 This file is askew and sideways and upside down, rather apt under the circumstances as to what had been occurring at the site.  😀

DC_10_52117-MONITORING_RESULTS-616598

I am not sure what John Baylay made of this, or how it could even be sufficiently verifiably confirmed as accurate.

It is further astonishing that this application effectively disappeared off the planning radar

until January 2012! WHY WAS IT ALLOWED TO LAY IDLE IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF BREACH OF PLANNING CONDITIONS SEEKING RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION, ALLOWED TO CONTINUE RETROSPECTIVELY WITHOUT VALID PERMISSION BEING GRANTED FOR SUCH OR ACTION TAKEN BY SANDWELL PLANNING AUTHORITY? THIS WAS PERMISSION GRANTED BY DEFAULT, WITHOUT ANY COUNCILLOR VOTING FOR IT.  

It is also noteworthy that in the period concerned, I noted Mintworth agents tatting for metal at the abandoned Duport’s tip site, also raising issues with this same planning officer, only for him to bat them away without him actually visiting the site top see what was going in there himself. Quite honestly, I always found his many decisions in relation to this companies planning applications very strange indeed. 

 

The next thing we see on file is from December 2011 and the reappearance of Sladen Associates who write to John Hurst of Mintworth.

DC_10_52117-LETTER_RE_PRE_LOADING_OPERATION-616597

This letter is quite ludicrous and again I would state cannot be verified independently by SMBC. It also asks for yet another year- oh what a surprise!

This endless and apparently “blank cheque Baylay” open application finally went to committee on 25/1/2012. 

DC_10_52117-COMMITTEE_REPORT___SUPPORTING_DOCUMENTS-555206

The effective permission granted by default- due entirely to the delay of the applicant in providing evidence for the retrospective permission was recommended by Mr B for another 18 months- a year for settlement, and 6 months to remove materials.

Of course, the nodding dogs of the planning committee allowed it without question.

 

Whether the material settled and at what point it was removed is now lost to time, but these pictures from 2017 show that a few years after, the site became another abandoned and unrealised “development site”- thus not immediately being suitable for the purpose for which this planning officer recommended approval.

If only some public money could be obtained to finally “settle” this longstanding toxic wreck of a site strangely owned by a tax haven registered company in Jersey- ah that forms the next part of this story……