Following numerous communications from myself as well as other local residents of Temple Way estate bordering the destructive activities of the landowner and their contractor, it is clear to see the lack of interest amongst local politicians who claim to represent the area. Communications with cabinet member Suzanne Hartwell and Deputy leader and ward councillor for example have not been returned. I do know she received them however due to an apparent accidental sharing of her forwarding my email on to a man called Alan Lunt, and I had to make sure I spelt that correctly. 😆
A. Lunt, got back to me with the abysmal email below, complete with spelling errors after a vigorous prodding no doubt that he had got from the member for Oldbury.
This email response remarkably coincided with the curtailing of DSM demolition’s “work” on the site to destroy green space and evidence of wildlife habitat- in a very similar way I would argue to that which the landowners of The Crooked House acted in regards to that building being a problem for their long term scheming motives for that particular piece of land.
It is therefore, complicity on the part of Sandwell planning policy officers to have stood by and let this destruction happen, fail to respond or answer reasonable concerns , and also a failure of environmental health, contaminated land officers and others to also engage. This is not the first time that has happened with regard to activities on this site that I have raised.
The copy and paste bullshit written below, and which Lunt shared and which Hartwell and others just copy and pasted to other residents is obscene in its fundamental untruthful lies being written on behalf of a private business not based in Sandwell and whose directors are foreign nationals.
I will dissect this shite paragraph by paragraph in rebuttal and give evidence of why the individuals who wrote this are deceiving those to whom they shared it- as it appears on the council’s planning website- that means every tax payer of this local authority.
Vegetation clearance work being done on Rattlechain Tip in Tividale, Oldbury | Sandwell Council
Rattlechain Tip in Tividale, Oldbury, is a privately-owned brownfield site that has been identified as being suitable for housing in the local plan, subject to planning permission being granted and reclamation work being done on the land.
This site is no longer known as “Rattlechain Tip”. This was a historic name when the site had a site licence SL947 , overseen by The Environment Agency. If they had stated “former rattlechain tip” or “Former Duport’s tip” that would be accurate. That should also be caveated in that the current owners of this land and their agents are also proposing the adjacent rattlechain lagoon, not owned by them with their site allocation for 550 houses in the local plan. The council may believe it has been identified as “suitable for housing”, but only a fucking fool/crook/fraudster would consider that it is given the history of contamination.
I would add that this “private site” has seen generous handouts from the public purse- and why should that be?
AN URBAN FOREST COSTING £56,000
A FENCED OFF REPLACEMENT FENCE IN GLADSTONE DRIVE COSTING £14,000
WE WOULD ALSO ADD THAT SINCE WHEN HAVE THE POLICE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR PATROLLING PRIVATE LAND IN RESPECT OF ASB BEING COMITTED ON THAT LAND , AND NOT PRIVATE SECURITY?
NONE OF THIS WAS PAID FOR BY JOHN HURST OR OTHERS AND CAUSED BY THIS MAN AND HIS FAMILY AND SUBSEQUENT MULTIPLE COMPANIES FOR WHICH HE WAS A DIRECTOR.
Planning officers from the council have met with the agents acting for the landowner to discuss how this large site can be reclaimed and redeveloped to provide much-needed housing.
WHEN, BEFORE OR AFTER IT WAS BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT WORKS NOT SANCTIONED BY PLANNING PERMISSION WERE UNFOLDING? Was this pre- application advice, which planning officers met with their agents and where? Again I would note that they do not own the lagoon site and I would therefore ask if Solvay were in on these discussions, given they have remained silent on what they make of this scheme. In 2011, they claimed they did not think is feasible. Historically that is also the view that came out of a report independently funded by The BCDC.
The term “much needed housing” is a lie- a political lie made by those supporting the daily locust invasion of singular men from a safe EU NATO country in boats, many with criminal or terrorist intent, and with no interest in this country at all, other than what they can take from it. The council needs housing because of Labour’s mismanagement of public finances on every sphere of Governance that it has ever held, bankrupting every economy with its pet project socialist bullshit agenda.
The landowner has this week started to clear vegetation in advance of future site investigations which will inform a future planning application.
This is a council statement as though it is fact, which it is not. There is no requirement to remove existing fauna that is known to be there. Site investigations were noted to be taking place in 2020, indeed what fools would buy land before undertaking site investigations unless they believe a conman who sold it on to them? The only reason the land was cleared in advance of the Sandwell plan examination is to remove all trace of the habitat mentioned in objection by ourselves and the BBC wildlife trust who specifically mentioned the need for a priority sites assessment and that it is in their LNRN before any application is submitted. This of course means that these tree destroyers can claim that it is no longer a priority site. There is due process to follow, and these have not.
Independent ecologists have assessed wildlife and protected species that live or may be living on the site and an ecologist is attending the works with a watching brief.
Do the council know this to be fact? What consultancy was overseeing this work? If they are being paid by the landowners they are not in any way “independent”. No ecologist knowing the objections from the BBC wildlife trust would have sanctioned this wholesale destruction, unless they are fake or bent. To call them “ecologists” is like calling Harold Shipman a good doctor.
Preparatory works of this type are a normal part of the development process.
This is a lie. If they were sanctioned by an outline planning application they may be, but that is not the case. No assessment has been made about this site, nothing has gone to a planning committee or been decided by the due process of scrutiny. Nothing has been put into the public domain to object to. The “normality” suggests a corrupt planning system at work with Sandwell council failing to consider its own policies in relation to wildlife and habitats. A planning application safeguards policies of this type with conditions attached, there are none here because there has not been an application when there should have been to justify this wholescale destruction.
The council has been advised that the private landowner has distributed leaflets to nearby residents to explain the works being undertaken which includes a contact number for the contractor should there be any queries relating directing to the works themselves.
THIS IS A BLATANT LIE ON BEHALF OF THE LIARS DESMOND AND PATRICK KELLY AND “RATTLECHAIN REDEVELPOMENTS LIMITED”. No residents received any leaflets, they have told us this, posted that publicly on social media and yet Sandwell council put this over as a statement of truth which they have not bothered to check for themselves. Do they think that I or others would have contacted the council and reacted asking them “what is going on?” if these Irish shysters had disseminated literature? The council here are misinforming the public and gaslighting them, and the fact they have put out this untruthful lie into the public domain means they are happy to lie for the liars from Malvern.
The council is aware of the work and has seen the contractor’s risk assessments to ensure the work being done is being properly managed. There will be no ground investigation of the site at this point.
They are aware because people have contacted them, or are they admitting here that they were aware that they were going to do the work- and are thus complicit in the destruction of wildlife habitat in response to the objections that we raised and that which the BBC wildlife trust also raised?
DSM demolition’s risk assessments are obviously a complete joke. At no time were there any site notices posted of what they were doing, no communication strategy, no visible warning notices or apparent method of working. There brief appears to be- “get rid of those fucking trees as quick as possible.” If the council were happy with this work then they in themselves are grossly negligent in being able to assess such works. If the council claim that there will be no ground investigation at this point, they have just contradicted why they have earlier claimed in a previous paragraph that it is “normal practice.” How do they account for this, as it suggests they are talking bollocks, which they are?
We have been advised that the work, which began on 8 January 2025, should take around two weeks to complete.
Again, they cannot confirm this but state they have been “advised. They put this statement out when the works had conveniently began to to stop. It was nearer three weeks, and at no time during this period were the council claiming to be aware of what was going in. If they did, then why their delay in having to ask the agents for more information?
This is a very early stage in investigating the potential future use of this site and no planning permission for development has been granted at this time.
So why do they believe that it is possible without this investigation being completed to include the site in a plan lasting into the 2030’s? Should we also remind them that this land has been soiled for over 50 years by operations sanctioned by their useless/corrupt planning department, and if it were a suitable site, then why did those earlier applications not guarantee that no contaminated issues were left there? Why would a site investigation even be needed given that Sandwell council has had control of planning for almost 50 years since 1974?
Should an application be made in the future, consultation on the proposals will be undertaken with residents who would then have a chance to make any comments. Any comments can be raised in writing via email to info@eliastopping.co.uk
This is another open ended doublespeak. Local residents have been affected already before any application and will be so before any is made. Residents have already made comments and Sandwell council officers like Alan Lunt have just batted them away with bullshit lies like this. They have signed a petition against these proposals already because no one on the estate wants this site for residential allocation, and Sandwell council already know this. Their planning policy officers however and the executive that are in the pockets of the construction industry and who follow Government diktats about relocating economic migrants claiming false asylum, using the banner “much needed housing” is too tempting a carrot when that same Government showers them with money for doing so.
The outfit in Birmingham are obviously acting as agents for the land owners, and no comments should be made to them by anyone at this stage. This is another contradiction in that the council have stated that comments should be made when an application surfaces, to them as a planning authority. You do not make representations to the applicants or their agents FFS!
As for the landowners, one is reminded of the bloke who lost his crypto laptop in a landfill site and now cannot get it back. Were there rumours of a long lost golden spud buried within the Duport’s Tip that had reached the fair shores of Kildare?- Maybe that is more nearer the truth than any of the bullshit being put out by Sandwell Council officers on their behalf.