The Gower Tip planning permission disgrace

And so to another bent planning matter!

In November, I revealed how this site was being lined up for a phoney “remediation” scheme in the same way as rattlechain lagoon was back in 2013. The prelude to this dodgy application has a long history, not least when the company responsible for dumping the waste there appear to have selective amnesia as to what was actually dumped there!  😡

I had exposed the pre spin show bigging up and expected planning application, which for some unknown reason arrived a month later. Several documents were uploaded to the SMBC planning portal, with site notices also posted under the following application.

DC/21/66208 | Proposed remediation works including re-profiling of site, installing cap above underlying waste material to uplift site by 1.4m, with new sub-surface cut off boundary wall along eastern boundary and landscaping. | Land Adjacent Former Sportsground (The Gower Tip) Lower City Road Tividale Oldbury.

It is important to note here the documents that were posted on the council website in October of 2021, and also the timeline events as to when it was claimed that the matter would be decided. HERE ARE THE SCREENSHOTS TAKEN FROM SANDWELL COUNCIL’S PLANNING PORTAL. 

There were 23 documents put up by 27th October 2021, and yet it has taken another 5 months to put up the last two, one of them, the decision notice which was delegated.

 

 

I know that the target date for this application was changed having looked at the status repeatedly, yet it is now coming up with fabled date of 9th March. THIS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CHANGED FOR REASONS UNSPECIFIED.

I had dissected the bullshit lies of Rhodia/Solvay and their agents in this post going over the documents and also asking many unanswered questions. I also pointed this out to the planning officer, CARL MERCER in objection, as well as emailing him, as well as sending the same email to the contaminated land officer for Sandwell, and an individual at The Environment Agency who deals with sites such as The Gower Tip. NONE OF THEM BOTHERED TO REPLY OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 

This has been the standard fair for matters involving this company, their activities and their none existent “regulated” sites over many years, and the silence of the so called public sector  “regulators”, largely I believe due to their local and national political connections, as well as to the buried military secrets of a Government/industrial complex that is the enemy of its own people. In particular, planning officers have been the most absolutely ignorant of the bunch, and I have had to chase individuals and make complaints when they have failed to answer standard issues. I was for example told that Alison Bishop , who dealt with some matters regards Rattlechain and the ludicrous extra CCTV  application had left the authority according to a senior councillor, but it now appears that this was a crock of shit, as she is the current “development planning manager” according to several recent planning reports. WTF?

The starting point of this waste burying cover up fraud was when officers  decided that no environmental impact assessment would be needed to proceed starting excavations on this site. This post looks at Bishop’s replies to my concerns, and they are bullshit. 

“I was satisfied following a walk over the site that these works do not constitute commencement of restoration works but are merely to inform the planning application.  I am informed that the planning application will be submitted early next year following analysis of the test results and full design being prepared.”

Substantial earthworks had occurred moving over a metre from the border with George Wood Avenue- houses which should never have been built, except as a consequence of another bent planning application, which was in fact decided by the idiots at Bristol after the council had actually grown a set of balls and objected.

The latter two documents , the officers report and the decision notice I will look at below, and they both raise substantial questions.

Firstly the decision notice which was passed on 9th March, except that for the planning meeting which took place on this night, the application was not even on the delegated list that had been presented to the committee!

Applications Determined Under Delegated Powers

THIS IS VERY SUSPICIOUS INDEED, AND IMPLIES THAT THIS IS A GHOST APPROVAL. WHY IS IT ABSENT FROM THE LIST? 

DC_21_66208-GRANT_PERMISSION_SUBJECT_TO_CONDITIONS-1183876

The application was approved, (not by the councillors),  with 8 conditions.

Aside from the usual standards about not inconveniencing local residents, LOL , there are two which are of note.

You will note that on the list of submitted documents on the public council website, the comments of the CRT WERE NOT ON THERE. This raises the question as to what the Canal and Rivers Trust had objected to about the application, and therefore why at this point the application was not referred by Carl Mercer to the committee?

Obviously there appears to have been some horse trading going on behind the scenes between Rhodia/Solvay’s agents and the CRT, but why should SMBC and its officers allow this to continue out of the pubic gaze when they have a job to do? THEIR JOB IS NOT TO SECURE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES BY THE BACK DOOR. 

THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE CRT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE WEBSITE, AND TAKEN AS AN OBJECTION FROM THIS STATUTORY CONSULTEE, IF THEY HAD ANY. 

The reason given for this condition is also elaborated on, together with the policy ENV4 CANALS from the dire BCCS.

Obviously, the CRT believed that “harm” could or would be caused to this fake remediation scheme in the manner in which Rhodia/Solvay were intending, which is the application that had been submitted back in October. The policy is also set out for clarity.

The plans for this site do not include any opportunity regards canal improvements. They also do not take into account the buried canal basins- likely filled with toxic waste. (I will raise this point again further on.)

The second document , the officers report is below.

DC_21_66208-OFFICER_NOTES-1183299

It is claimed that TWO objections were received, and the reasons stated are below.

NB, NO REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CRT ORIGINAL COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS, OR POLICY ENV4 CANALS. 

So this does suggest that the CRT DID have objections, and yet a period of haggling outside of public scrutiny appears to have overcome this obstacle. THIS IS IMPORTANT, AS THREE OBJECTIONS, AND ONE FROM A STATUTORY CONSULTEE WOULD HAVE MEANT THIS APPLICATION WOULD HAVE GONE TO COMMITTEE AND NOT BEEN DELEGATED BY ONE PERSON. 

On this basis, and with the timescale appearing to have suited Rhodia/Solvay, this planning matter is corrupt, and it shows how the whole planning process is corrupt when large companies can change their comments from the original ones and sweet talk objectors with further information out of the public eye.

As for the CRT, I have long had misgivings about this  organisation as a charity, and why they should remain powerful in this regard concerning planning matters.  They do appear to care more about angling and the advancement of polluting floating diesel snails than wildlife and the effects on the damage that these two activities cause which keeps its “charity” afloat. As “British Waterways” , they were even worse and were complicit with the applicants in the dumping of toxic wastes into rattlechain, this site- The Gower tip, as well as a stack of others of their own along the BCN network. It is a joke of a policy on which they now comment as statutory consultee when the biggest polluters to the canal system were their predecessor public funded organisation. THEY TOO ARE NO DOUBT HAPPY TO BURY THEIR PART IN THIS DISGUSTING TOXIC WASTE DUMPING EVIL AND THE LEGACY THEY HAVE MADE. 

• The “relevant professionals” is a misnomer in itself regarding this site.

The statement that the River Tame runs a “safe distance from the site” shows how retarded they are in that they appear to not know that there is a direct pathway via the frequently polluted Brades Brook. We have seen pollution through Sheepwash Nature Reserve on a number of occasions, and the EA are fully aware of incidents when they have sent out Severn Trent to deal with them via the STW owned asset. Curiously, there is no mention of this serial polluters comments in the officers report, who are also a statutory consultee.

The rest of these relevant objections are brushed over without any debate- it was apparent that no mention of the waste history that I gave was even mentioned, because it would obviously raise difficult questions for these dick heads to answer.

• I have no idea as to who the other objector was, but here is the objection I made on behalf of The Friends of Sheepwash Nature Reserve.- In November when the matter should have been decided and not kicked into extra time to subvert the process.

 

This report almost reads as though it were written by the applicants themselves, and one wonders whether it was!

Obviously when I saw this crap on the council website I immediately raised concerns via a local councillor and have also brought it to the attention of the Chair of planning in the hope that such delegated decisions on contentious sites like this are not air brushed in the way that this application has been.

Sandwell council are on a very big radar at present, with planning matters historically along with parks being one hell of a giant bogey stain on democracy and legitimate governance.

This was the crap response I received, which raises more questions about the process. There is no name attached as to who responded from the council.

“About your concerns about the handling of the planning application ref: DC/21/66208 – Proposed remediation works including re-profiling of site, installing cap above underlying waste material to uplift site by 1.4m, with new sub-surface cut off boundary wall along eastern boundary and landscaping, I would respond as follows:-

Our neighbour notification letter states that we are unable to confirm receipt of representations, however the officer’s report clearly reference the objections received and considers these as part of the decision.

The council wrote to 29 residents in total and received two objections.  The Council’s delegation’s agreement states that officers have delegated powers when less than three objections from members of the public have been received.  As this was the case the decision was made by the planning officer under delegated powers.

Relevant statutory consultees were also consulted, for example Public Health (contaminated land), Environment Agency and Canals and River Trust.  In their final response, the Canals and River Trust raised no objection and requested appropriate conditions to be attached to the decision notice, which were actioned.

Subject to compliance with data protection (GDPR) I shall also arrange for the comments made by the Canals and River Trust to be made public in the interests of transparency.” 

• If two objections were received , were these from the 29 residents written to, or does it include the FOS one which I made in addition, which would make the magic 3 number?
• Note that “in their final response” the CRT made no objections, so again this appears to suggest that they DID have objections originally and that at this time this application should have been referred to the planning committee, and not delegated by one person.
• The response states that the missing comments would be uploaded, “in the interests of transparency”. I would question why they were not in the first instance, given that this appears to have extended the application beyond its original target determination date? 

On returning to the website, it appears that six new previously missing documents have thus appeared, including the communications between The CRT and Rhodia/Solvay’s agents- and do note the dates of these.

I will look at these in turn, firstly a noise comments response from SMBC officers which is fairly pointless. We all know that this will inconvenience local residents with many vehicles entering the site on a daily basis for most of the day. This will be however the least of their problems compared to dusts and chemicals emitted from the site! These are silent killers which will not give off alarms or pap their horns, but SMBC et al do not give a shit about such matters, or even want the matter debated in the interests of “public health”.

DC_21_66208-PUBLIC_HEALTH_-_NOISE-1186898

The environment agency response can be read below, and is their usual vague green light.

DC_21_66208-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY-1186897

 

They appear to love these cosy little meetings where the public are excluded and have no say or can ask questions. As for the “manage and reduce the possible impacts to all receptors from their closed landfill beneath” , has that ship not fucking sailed after 30 years of failure to ensure that there were no  possible impacts to all receptors when the imbeciles at Sandwell council allowed the licence to be surrendered?

The EA claim that a risk assessment was carried out in 2015 concerning potential off site receptors, again “modelled” and not a real picture. When conditions are changed in this real world however the EA will not be there to monitor them as the impotent waste of space that they are.

This response is written by a planner and does not consider the chemistry of the site or even address “the wastes materials”  as they call them. How convenient for all concerned who want the knowledge of these buried forever.

As for the nitty gritty of this matter regards the CRT, it becomes apparent that although the correspondence put up by the council is titled “initial comments”, that the dated letter of  22nd January 2022 is in fact no such thing, and that the CRT had obviously written on this subject and application prior to this, so much for the transparency there eh?

DC_21_66208-CANAL_AND_RIVER_TRUST_-_INITIAL_COMMENTS-1186895

In fact the letter shows that Carl Mercer had provided them with “additional information”, but his correspondence and theirs is not shown on the planning documents.

 It is clear that the trust HAD OBJECTIONS- BECAUSE OF “INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION”, even it appears with Mercer’s help. They also state that they would like more information, but at this late stage how long should an application be kept open, and why should a public servant be the umpire between a private sector company and a “charity”, always it seems on the side of presumed development unless there is a compelling reason to refuse? In this case there was because the CRT were not happy about the application as supplied. Why should it not have been determined on this basis, when already known to Mercer that there were already two objections? I wonder if this information had also been passed on to the applicants BEFORE the close of the determination date? 

The trust had concerns about the proximity to the canal and the proposed new structures- obviously as a pathway could be created that was not there previously. They are also concerned about the integrity of the canal border with the site. It is noted that the EA did not even consider this matter, as evidence by their pathetic response above.

The following passage is also clear evidence that some form of dialogue had been ongoing BEFORE this letter and these were not their “initial comments.”

 

We do see what these were, thanks to the CRT.  🙂

They specifically mention that there is no evidence that the canal basins are clay lined.

On February 16th 2022, ERM respond to these CRT objections- let’s call “insufficient information ” that because that is what they have stated. If they had no objections to start with then Mercer could have closed the application down by delegated powers by this date.

It appears that the CRT comments were passed on, and that a telephone conversation also took place between the planning officer and the agents of Rhodia/Solvay. This type of running commentary on objections and ways of overcoming them I find totally perverse and an abuse of the planning system. Remember, I had also contacted this officer about specific information about this site, not least that the agents had lied about the site history in the declaration, and yet none of my valid questions or concerns were put forward or answered by these lying bastards.

DC_21_66208-APPLICANT_RESPONSE_TO_CRT-1186914

• ERM state that there is  waste material near to the canal which is to be excavated. They do not state what this material is or whether it has been analysed for specific chemicals. If it poses no current risk then what is the point of capping it so long after licence surrender?
• There is total vagueness about the condition of the canal boundary, but leave it till the contractor is on site after the application has been approved.
• ERM provide several diagrams which look good on paper. They did the same with rattlechain and lied about the composition of barrelled waste in the sediment and its close proximity to the surface, and not at the bottom of it as they drew.
• There is no way on earth that ERM can claim that waste tipping operations of Albright and Wilson et al including the British Waterways Board did not extend to infilling the canal basins. They claim that the basins are outside of current site, but this was the same fraud used concerning rattlechain where the current Autobase site included a large section of land where tipping would have taken place that was once within the site before licensing.
• The two so called “attenuation ponds” used in sites such as The Eagle River Flats for dealing with phosphorus wastes are to be 3.16metres and 2.80 metres deep. that appears to be a hell of a lot of surface water to me!

DC_21_66208-CANAL_AND_RIVER_TRUST_-_FINAL_COMMENTS-1186894

The CRT replied briefly to these comments on 3rd March 2022. No sooner then had the green light been given to removing their objection, the officer report appears to have been written and the matter avoiding being submitted to the next planning committee just 6 days later. 

No questions asked about the materials allowed to be tipped and which lie beneath the Gower Tip awaiting to be disturbed on a site where houses now border and where capping may produce more issues. NO OFFICER OF ANY ORGANISATION WILL ANSWER REASONABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS HISTORIC BURIED LEGACY, AND LIKE THE APPLICANTS AND THEIR AGENTS THEY ARE YELLOW FUCKING COWARDS IN THIS REGARD. 

So there it is, and once again the waste dumpers dodge answering any difficult questions about historic waste. It is becoming a national standard facilitated by officers of multiple Governmental  quangos and local Government officers. THEY ARE A TOTAL DISGRACE AND THEY DO NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO.