The useless Sandwell Plan is now thankfully out of the hands of Sandwell planning policy and is to be reviewed by a supposedly “independent” inspector appointed by the Secretary of State- erm, the one who wants to build as many rat holes for the dinghy donghy folk entering the country illegally via a safe NATO EU country- and many as a result of decades of wars propagated by the West in the Middle East for the military/industrial complex so Westminster scum can gain backhander rewards.
In terms of the aims of this website and conservation groups, the aim has always been to oppose the wretched con artistry that transpired throughout the 1990’s with shifting large amounts of foundry sand around for profit between three self proclaimed “areas” and then leaving fuck all when the easiest part- the former sewage works had gained development through appeal- in truth that appeal should never have been allowed but was- by an “independent inspector!”
This exposure of what went on then has been years in the making for myself, over half of my life, and in due course that story will be publicly revealed in full so that this independent inspector can see the light and not be conned like John Woolcock was in 2003. Not conned by phoney “expert witnesses” or random academics who made statements of absolute provable untruth such as “oxidation-reduction reactions over time “ would have lowered the amount of white phosphorus in the lagoon- BULLSHIT.
Not conned by the desire to shift around massive over tipped piles of foundry sand into a vacant hole- the lagoon, as regulators in 1990 ruled out totally in the Cremer and Warner report and then just leave it there knowing full well this site would never support built foundations. Not conned by the loss of bio diversity and scammed by “bio diversity credits” like some money laundering Maltese crypto currency. Yes, there are many things about these two sites which are scams and frauds, and have been since the days of the scumbag Sydney Sheldon.
Nine regulation 19 forms were submitted by myself, on behalf of The Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve, backed by a petition signed by many local residents of the Temple Way estate, and users of Sheepwash. Also supplied with this was a comprehensive set of evidence references which were mentioned on every form, as I feared they would be excluded or redacted by the council- who send the database responses off to the programme officer, and the inspector.
Needless to say, when the forms were published, I could see that the detailed evidence base HAD NOT BEEN. This file had clearly been sent with the forms, and a digital copy of the petition, and so I quickly contacted the programme officer about this matter, proving that it had been sent, and proving that the council had received it. I can only speculate that this was some oversight on the part of those behind this plan, but as I do not trust them in the least, I am certainly glad that the inspector now has a fuller understanding of what others would see less complex. This includes relevant evidence from Marianne Walsh- a real expert in white phosphorus chemistry and remediation from published papers during her time at the US Army Corp of Engineers- where in one instance, Rattlechain lagoon and the bird deaths were cited!
Sandwell council have now published more detail on the sites SH36 AND SH35– which includes the lagoon, without any comment or agreement that Rhodia/Solvay support this proposal- as last time in 2011 they did not when the question was asked of them. On this matter I need to digress.
These “scientists” have dodged answering questions about this site over countless years and have shown themselves to have a backbone of a yellow streak of piss, more jaundiced than the yellow phosphorus they thought was “safe” being dumped in the lagoon- and Dutton, Moorhouse, and co I’m talking about YOU! Sometimes I wonder if they contracted Giardiasis from their limited time at the waterside of their dump- as that may explain the yellow stool’s disorder in telling the truth.
If you had been honest with me from day one and not lied, misinformed and come out with semantic fucking shite, then the light of exposure may have never been out on you. You were just servants of a corporate machine and protectors of the chemical industry that dumps harmful material knowingly and then expects everyone to believe that it is “harmless” by claiming that what it is mixed in with can be found in “everyday items”. This was the standard lie of Albright and Wilson, and it was just continued over decades without scrutiny by every regulator and by pathetic civil servants in planning and contaminated land.
I have to state, that I did not see this form at all during the consultation, and it appears to have been added post consultation.
Site_Proformas_1___100_with_cover_page
SH35
A checklist appears which in itself is not a credible start given that the two sites cannot be lumped together as one site- where evident, I will refer to these by the correct names, rattlechain lagoon- SL31 licence, and Fomer Duport’s Tip operating under several licences. The lagoon licence is still current and the site has not been fully remediated- hence no licence surrender.
- The “overgrown and neglected” area refers to the former Duport’s Tip side, though in truth, what does “overgrown” mean, when it was created as “private open space” in the title of the planning application? Any issues with neglect lie with the Hurst family entirely.
- The historic summary is just not acceptable and massages the truth about contamination issues.
- A traffic light system is envisaged for certain criteria, and whoever wrote this is not qualified to make such assessments, nor credible in a professional capacity to do so.
- Topography- er the site was over-tipped with foundry sand to levels never agreed by the regulators or in planning conditions!
- Note that this states that a “tree survey may be required” – not that one has been completed. This is not a free pass to cut them all down!
- Sandwell council again fail to mention the biodiversity at Sheepwash and the clear network within the identified Local Nature recovery network. This should be RED
- I would state that the site DOES have visual amenity in an area swamped by housing. It is a valued asset in a landlocked area. Why is nature treated so flippantly here?
- Flood risk- er that is not what the Environment Agency have commented in objection!
- Ground contamination- well how do they manage to navigate around that elephant in the room? This imbecile who wrote this obviously knows nothing at all about the two separate sites, and their incompatibility. They know nothing about the proven systemic exposure to receptors, which the useless regulators could not see, or the risks to human health which remain- especially phosphine gas and the lagoon being dewatered. This was an obvious red, and the statement is inadequate characterisation of the issues to an almost childlike level- or the work of a liar more likely.
- Air quality- are you fucking serious? The issues of this site and the foundry sand ruining their homes is well documented but systematically ignored by SMBC environmental health and planners.
- The failure to separate the sites in terms of past use or even mention the still active waste licence is again noted in the ridiculous over simplification.
- “Issues of contamination and remediation may delay delivery”- no fucking shit! This should obviously be red given that the lagoon is still under licence!
- In terms of current logistics and amenity, this too is over simplified in the matter of waste water and capacity adjacent to The River Tame. Severn Trent have a vested interest in this land, and should not be treated as an impartial consultee!
- By the South, they presumably mean Gladstone Drive
- Oh “slight congestion” are they even aware of this estate and its issues already! How is an extra 550 houses going to produce this!
- How these idiots can claim that existing schools etc could accommodate this increase in housing, let alone other proposed sites in the plan as well is beyond belief.
- It is noted that loss of wildlife oppurtunites or habitat loss not even assessed by these arseholes.
The existing landowner is not stated, but appears to me to be similar in suggestion to the supposed former land owner of questionable character.
- The sustainability scores are nonsense diversions away from the constraint issues of remediation and who would pay for this- certainly not the fucking site owners by past experience who are already tapping the public purse for their Coneygree site, left in similar state by the Hurst family! It is this type of theory written by desk based prats that is the problem I gavce with all of this. The lack of knowledge or investigation is staggering, but on a par with people like John Baylay, who in public said one thing, and in private said that the site was “a crap site for residential!- which it was, and this one is even crapper still!
Well at least the good folk of Temple Way can sleep easier knowing that some ginger headed fucker will not be knocking their doors offering the remove the single trees in the gardens for “tirty tree” quid. How ironic that the only red is about where to put didicoys- piss off down BMH.
The loss of all that green space could not possibly result in the biodiversity net gain that the council love to talk abut on paper.
SH36
This smaller area once again is defined by its appearance suggesting the land owners have obviously left it in this manner, and yet appear to be incapable or unwilling to remedy their lack of management, presumably so they can tap the public purse to do it.
The idea that this is not in a flood risk zone when the site includes a certain large clue is beyond belief!
Once again, mention of a tree survey. There appears to be a large amount of cop/paste going on here with these sites, meaning that the real identification is not credible, but rushed to get the document out. The traffic light system is therefore a game of paper/scissors/stone and left to those who really know the land to make their own conclusions, and not theirs. Unless the planning inspector visits sites like this for himself, he is also reliant on guesswork that should not be the basis of such assessments.
The most interesting comment is given in linking these two sites- ie, the same owners own SH36 to the majority of the SH35 site, minus rattlechain lagoon. I have asked to see the letter from who these agents are, as to date, I cannot find a record of it in the submissions for regulation 19.
I will deal with what has transpired on this site within the last two weeks in the next post, which makes a further mockery of Sandwell Council Planning Policy, their weak policies and the destruction of greenery in what they claimed would be “a garden city principle” scheme.
When all this land is gone, where will we see any wildlife, as it will not be in any Garden City that the fools in planning policy at SMBC think can fit around their overcrowded residential hell they so love.