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.
Local Plan – Publication Version
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.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council – Sandwell Local Plan – Reg 19 Publication
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.
Reg19_Publication_Consultation_Response_Form_v2
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.
OBJECTING
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.
M13 c) Email from Rhodia to Council
- 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-
The National Planning Policy Framework.
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.
A site in Clevedon in the UK tipped also by Albright and Wilson as with Rattlechain resulted in that land being rejected for future housing and retained as open space which required monitoring.
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.
Just read the disgusting situation caused by the John Hursts x2 of Mintworth when tipping the waste regards “adverse impacts” in paragraph 191.
- 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 of document 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………………….?