Sandwell Council’s ecological chaos- The Small Blue Butterfly Effect

It has been my longstanding personal experience of this local authority that wildlife protection and the protection of wildlife habitat have been thrown to the wolves or housing developers over time. Nature corridors like those which border Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve such as The River Tame and The Birmingham Mainline Canal and branches are vital for species to use as means of travel and you cannot just designate a site with a status pretending that all the nature in that one area should live there. This is the absurd idea behind Biodiversity net gain banks that now appears part of Government and local authority mantra like The Sandwell Local Plan.

It wasn’t always this way, and Sandwell council in the early 1980’s appeared committed to ecological preservation recognising the benefits to human and wildlife interaction with Sheepwash and Forge Mill at Sandwell Valley landscaped and blended into the natural landscape. This is how it should have been continued and how it should remain today.

Even Rattlechain lagoon, as toxic as it is and due to its isolation and gravelly pathway attracts rare birds. Common terns ironically used to breed on the pontoons which piped the poison into the lake. More recently, black necked grebe and also waders have been spotted, and I was particularly thrilled to have found a whimbrel early one morning, a very rare passage migrant for this part of the world.

It is sad that despite the 2013 cover up works that Rhodia promoted as “improvements”, we have not seen any attempt by this or successor company to create nesting opportunities for common terns or anything else here. Not a bird box in site despite erecting massive poles with cctv without any planning permission. They never cared about the wildlife on here, only their own damaged reputation.

Sadly, we do not have politicians of any clout now who champion wildlife and ecological concerns. This is left to a few celebrities or local activist groups, whilst the housing developers have the ears of Government, pouring poison into their ears and likely money into their seedy pockets. Nature has never faced a worse bad deal than is now on the cards.

Everywhere at every level, Sandwell council fails to safeguard nature and its integrity. Take one case in point in the area of interest that we are now concerned with in the rattlechain area, and on this matter I did raise this several times in the local plan consultations process. See PDF below which I will explain.

Designation of Nature Conservation Sites

In July 2022, a report to Sandwell’s cabinet saw a number of sites with designation tweaked.

 

 

The John’s Lane area we will look at below, but attention should be drawn to the fact that the area in question was already a designated SLINC to Sandwell council, but also that this review extended the area based on a claimed ecological survey, and yet we get no explanation for the change in the area, which appears to me to just appear as though the council are “doing something” with areas so that they can later claim to be ecologically good eggs.

“2.4 The recommendation is required to ensure that the Council’s Local Plan
is based on up-to-date evidence and can continue to be used as the basis for robust and defensible planning decisions.”

So this means that the area that they are supportive of levelling to build 550 houses, including the SLINC would be “defensible”, right, in their local plan, based on “up-to-date evidence” from 2022?

Further on in this report we also get this, just to show the negative reasons as to what value Sandwell council places on such designated areas for wildlife.

“4.5 The surveying of existing SINCs and SLINCs is essential to ensure that
such designations are based on robust and up-to-date evidence.
4.6 The potential for planning decisions to be challenged increases where it
can be shown that Local Plan allocations are based on out-of-date or incomplete information. Ensuring that there is current information relating to the Borough’s inventory of nature conservation sites, including SINCs and SLINCs, reduces this risk.”

Sandwell council also put in a disclaimer by name dropping the local wildlife trust.

“4.8 The reports are based on recommendations made by The Wildlife Trust
for Birmingham and the Black Country. The recommendation has been
endorsed by the Local Sites Partnership (LSP).”

In this SLINC area, we are talking about the perimeter between the rattlechain lagoon and the former “Rattlechain Tip” area- all private land, and yet no assessment appears to have been made concerning the wider area beyond that or if this was even surveyed. We of course know that  Lepus consulting on behalf of SMBC did not do any of this for their proposed habitat BNG banks as the council did not ask them to. 

The SLINC area the council extended is incomprehensible in terms of why? In fact it appears to me that someone just did a cock doodle to tick the box they wanted as per the reason above. What the fuck is there, compared to what IS there to the right on the land that was levelled by scumbags earlier in the year?

As it is, we are aware that the former Duport’s Tip area next to Rattlechain lagoon contains a rare butterfly- the small blue, (Cupido minimus), Britain’s smallest butterfly as well as the associated kidney vetch (Anthyllis vulneraria) 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, also appearing on the GB Red List (2022): Near Threatened. I had a site walkover last year with naturalist Darrell Harrison who had found the butterfly and several unusual plants on the site of local rarity.

Darrell’s report was submitted to the Sandwell Local Plan as part of The Friends of Sheepwash Nature Reserve submission. His sightings of this butterfly start in 2022, the same year that those who surveyed the John’s Lane area for SMBC , or claimed to could not appear to find fuck all. Why is that?

The Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust specifically also mentioned this area and this species in their submission to Sandwell council, see below.

In addition to this “up-to date information”, Sandwell council were also given a very comprehensive report by Paul Dunn, a butterfly and moth expert who had been tracking a colony of small blue butterflies in this area SINCE 2016! They also have the work of Mike Poulton, a local botanical expert who also has independently identified this butterfly and associated kidney vetch over this period, his report verified by Professor Ian Trueman Chairman of the Birmingham and Black Country Botanical Society, and co-author of the Flora of Birmingham and the Black Country. I had a site walkover with Mike and Paul after the destruction of trees. It has been documented that this site recorded 27 out of 57 resident butterfly species (Painted Lady & Clouded Yellow makes 59) 45.76% of the British list last year. Representatives from Butterfly Conservation and Professor Trueman have also visited the site, and have all made contributing evidential records on the site which have been submitted to eco record.

This photo, and I did a video as well of the whole area where the butterflies were taken in May 2025 making this the ninth year in a row where  their presence of an established colony has been observed. I am also now aware that there were verified sightings before this.

THIS THEREFORE MEANS THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE OUT OF DATE INFORMATION AND HAVE MADE A TERRIBLE CHOICE WHICH WILL OF COURSE NOW BE CHALLENGED IN ANY PLANNING DESCISION AND WAS ALSO CHALLENGED IN THE LUDICROUS PLAN AT THE EXAMINATION STAGE. THEY HAVE IGNORED THE “UP- TO- DATE EVIDENCE” AND HAVE INSTEAD BACKED THE PLANS OF LIARS AND UNPROFESSIONAL SWINDLERS WHO HAVE DESTROYED NATURE.

They have also now refused my FOI request seeking the bullshit Rattlechain Redevelopments/DSM ecology report, which does not exist, but they claimed it did. This report was obviously so bad, and not compiled with anyone with an ounce of talent or expertise that to publish it would be embarrassing to them as a consultancy- they would never get any future business, and the council would also look bad in that they believed the shite that they had made up.

FOI REQUEST.

There is a long and wordy pile of bollocks in the refusal, but this is the key part.

“The developer is aware of the long-standing objections relating to the proposed use of land and asserts that objectors have sought to adversely harm their interests through the spreading of misinformation and inaccurate statements, relating to the potential development of the site, with particular emphasis on the ground conditions and ecological implications of the same.  It is felt that disclosure of the information at this point, prior to a firm decision to develop or prior to a planning application being submitted is premature. It is considered that sharing information prematurely could lead to speculation and discussion outside the formal planning processes, which would divert time and resources from ensuring a thorough and considered approach.  The disclosure would clearly cause adverse harm to the developer as it will result in the need for further rebuttals, when these matters should be dealt with at the appropriate stage i.e. through the planning application process or through an Examination in Public of the Local Plan.”

Although at first minded to challenge the refusal, I was instead guided to leave it there and present our extensive documented information, juxtaposed with the council refusal to present any information, to the planning inspector, who will hopefully be able to see the wood through the trees with people who claim “misinformation” and “inaccurate statements” and yet are not prepared to put their work in the public domain to be scrutinised.

Further information on this matter has also come to light from Sarah Coombes MP for West Bromwich, whom we also met on site. She met with Alan Lunt, and I must say the tone of this letter is very different to that which the council have put out, and I would like to thank Sarah for taking this matter up with them, and hopefully underscoring how badly this has been handled from a public relations point of view by those at the council, believing and representing a proven liar and not local affected residents.

“Towards the end of 2024, the owner informed the council of his intention to carry out intrusive site investigations across the land. The council was advised that the landowner had commissioned independent ecologists to carry out a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) across the tip with the intention of confirming the presence or likely presence of rare or protected species.
It was also confirmed that a separate badger survey had also been carried out. Based on the findings of the PEA the landowner confirmed to the council that works would begin to clear vegetation across the site in January 2025.
On 8 January 2025, the owner began preparatory works to reinstate access into and across the site for plant and equipment. It was confirmed to the council that this work was limited to clearing vegetation from the mound, with no intrusive ground investigations at this stage. The council was also advised that an ecologist would be on site to undertake a watching brief throughout this work, to ensure all conditions set out in the PEA were complied with, and to monitor for the presence of unexpected protected species.”

Appendix G SC01730-Sarah-Coombes-response-rattlechain

Just a few observations on this slightly amended council statement.

• It is interesting that the council refer to “the site owner” and “his” singular, and not the entity who appear on the title deeds who are a company- “rattlechain redevelopments limited” . I wonder here if we are really dealing with the same individual from the 1990’s and this has just been another of his elaborate, but not particularly intelligent aliases and hustles like the Jersey registered fake companies he set up?
• Intrusive site investigations had already taken place in 2020, as observed, and yet the council claimed that there is no current plan for intrusive site investigations, so which is right and why did this change?
• The site was entirely cleared and not just “the mound”
• As already stated, these “independent ecologists” were obviously shite and there is no time scale as to when this claimed report took place. I BELIEVE THERE WAS NONE AT ALL CARRIED OUT, AND THE SITE OWNER IS A LIAR. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN CAUGHT OUT WITH THE PHANTOM “LEAFLETS” WHICH NO ONE HAD. GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT, LET US SEE THIS REPORT AND DON’T REFUSE TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO RELEASE IT- EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. 
• The presence on site of an ecologist is another pack of lies, and no “rare species” would be present in December/January, nor would any credible ecologist carry out a survey during these months as an assessment of rare species on the site. Why did they miss Japanese Knotweed in their “watching brief”, DSM contractors spreading and disturbing this across the entire site with machinery? We have video evidence of this.

Small blue butterflies at Rattlechain Tip. 

 

This comment by SMBC is of note regards status of sites.

The status of this site has been poorly classified by Sandwell council and the site owners, It demands greater protection from their destructive plans and dirty chancers.