What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

This third and final week of the Sandwell Local Plan examination was about specific policy areas and their soundness and was conducted online instead of in the council chamber. I had never used Microsoft Teams before so had a practice before the day in question to get used to the application.

Unfortunately, I cannot find that these meetings were recorded as with the previous council chamber webcasts, as there is no record of them in that library.

The specific areas I had commented on were policies SNE1 and SNE2 relating to environmental and habitat issues and policy SCO3 on contaminated land. These areas are obviously key to Rattlechain Lagoon and the ludicrous scheme to use this “void” for filling in waste from a polluter that has never paid on adjacent land.

As with the other days, the inspector had specific matters and issues and invited comments for hearing statements. These areas had already been looked at in some depth in week two, but this overarching policy overlapped this specific site.

Matter 4 concerned natural and historic environment policies. The hearing statement I made for this can be viewed below.

Sandwell Plan matter 4

At the hearing session , the council finally admitted “human error” in relation to failing to recognise Sheepwash as a local nature reserve in 2015, even though they were in full knowledge that it had been designated many years earlier. I expressed concern at this and arguments were made concerning the status of sites and if existing sites would be protected or face deletion.

I did not believe that The Fens pool Nature Reserve or Cannock extension canal were relevant to the Sandwell local plan. In terms of the former, I am aware through a former warden that the designation of this site was based on the great crested newts there, though the way in which Dudley Council and now the CRT have mismanaged it for many years undermines its status, making it questionable if it should have elevated importance above those within Sandwell’s own borders.

There was discussion again around the nature recovery map and its effectiveness when the council were considering overwriting housing in this area.

The discussion on BNG sites in policy SNE2 revealed that Sheepwash had been ruled out by Sandwell planning policy because there were additional site owners such as Network rail. I have to say I find this absurd. I made it clear at the week two hearing that Sheepwash had significantly been mismanaged for years with more interest put into Sandwell Valley and green flag parks, and this omission was yet more evidence in it being blacklisted for spurious reasons. By far over 95% of the site is SMBC owned.

I looked in greater depth as to the inadequacies if the Lepus consulting study BNG sites in this post.

Matter 11 and policy SCO3 concerns contaminated land. My submission in relation to this matter and issues the inspector had can be viewed below.

sandwell plan matter 11

It is clear that there are concerns about how policy is shaped in relation to the current National Planning Policy Framework and its paragraphs, something I realised as this matter unfolded. The theory of “clean up” and responsibility and whose it is has consistently failed across the country and in Sandwell it has unravelled significantly at sites I mentioned such as The Millpool.

Without the polluter paying, without a clear direction that the council can “satisfactorily” guarantee no harm will come to future users is part of the problem, and I think the inspector got that. The wording of a policy is almost part of the problem in that the idea of turning contaminated land into housing is a very bad idea to start with.

This is why I stated that all former landfill sites be removed from residential site allocations within the plan and their acceptance that future risk outweighs built development upon them. 

How do you solve a problem like “the mere”?

BR7P51 Aerial view of white phosphorus chemical waste disposal in Rattlechain Lagoon, St John’s Lane, Tividale, Sandwell, England, Britain, Uk

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. 

looks like someone has been doodling penises in Sandwell council

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.

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.

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. 

© Mike Poulton taken June 2022 at Rattlechain Tip

©Mike Poulton Small blue butterfly at Rattlechain Tip taken June 2021

©Mike Poulton small blue butterfly taken at Rattechain Tip June 2021

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

NOTE THE DATE AND THAT WE CAN PROVE WHAT WAS ON THE SITE BEFORE DSM DEMOLITION TURNED UP

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. 

“SHEEPWASH” FFS!

And so to week 2 of the Sandwell local Plan examination. Week one and my participation in that I looked at HERE.

This week saw “the big one” as I see it, discussion of soundness of the plan regards site allocations, principally sites SH35 and SH36 involving the lagoon and the other land around it in separate ownership.

I made a big point of separating the two sites in submissions with two appendices of the two tip histories which can be read  HERE. 

There is much to break down in this, but this post is just a “precis” update, and I will do a legacy page post and full rebuttal of matters at a later date. Matter 9  was the inspector’s questions following the hearing statements and a chance to comment on those in light of her further questions.

Examination in session

The submission statement I made in relation to these questions can be read at the link below.

Matter9 SH35 AND SH36 UNSOUND

In response to Sandwell Council’s hearing statement, there are some new elements which I will look at here which are most important, and as stated, will do a full break down at a later date. These elements were discussed at the examination which I will reference here.

The key issue is that the council are now proposing the two sites as one package as a “strategic site”. This is a jargon aimed at getting a tax payer bailout for “cleaning up” private land where the polluter- (The Hurst Family et al) have not paid. The fact that “Rattlechain Redevelopments Limited” (the Kelly family) made a shite investment in buying the land from the tax avoidance “Denver Limited” for £1.2 million, (Mintworth in disguise), is not our problem, it is theirs. We had over a decade in the 1990’s of supercilious arrogant demands from one company, under many names, who felt entitled to have everything their own way and believe that everyone should just roll over for their ambitions of “private open space” with multiple drawn out planning applications. Well fuck that, it is not going to happen again as long as I am drawing breath. 

It is not Sandwell Council’s problem either, but it is now clear that this authority is just purporting for private land banking investors not from our area in order to meet the housing figures of the bent “Labour Growth Group”= political class fingers in the pies with the development construction industry and malfeasance in public office. It is a pitch for man in glasses Parker and the combined authority which has already shelled out money for the Kelly family and their also former Mintworth abandoned land at Coneygree as well as the Shidas Lane Mintworth debacle that became an ambulance base in another crooked deal.

Sandwell_Council_Matter_9_statement

This is a lengthy document so do not be put off reading the important pages which start at page 14 concerning SH35 and SH36 which the council are now calling a combined site allocation of   “SHO12″ – I would call it a  “SHIT SHO” in line with former planning officer John Baylay’s description of the former sewage works site and its residential adequacy. 

The other main issue is that Sandwell Council included comments from the agents of RRL (The Kelly family) as part of their promotion. At no time have Elias Topping or RRL made any representations at any stage of this process , and of course SMBC referred frustrated residents to the lies of the aforementioned in connection with the fake leaflets which were never delivered before the ecocide that took place in January.

It is stated that SMBC entered a formal protocol, a “memorandum of understanding” with RRL as well as the “charity” known as the CRT- once again an apparent reboot homage to the corrupt cabal goings on of the late 1980’s and the BCDC. This was unsigned it is stated, and I made an FOI request in relation to that matter, which SMBC have once again refused as they did the bogus “environmental survey” that it was claimed had been undertaken before the massacre of trees. More on that further on in this post.

Does this not show how this plan appears to be evolving as a rolling overtime show because it was rushed through without adequate preparation? They have also now claimed it is a “strategic site”, and so tie the whole plan’s soundness into this site being able to be delivered by 2041.  In 2011, the same site that never came forward, and it was never proven that it could be, has not gone any further in 14 years. That planning inspector at that examination of site allocations said that this sites omission from the plan as a whole would not demonstrably make the then plan unsound. THIS IS NOW NOT THE CASE NOW BECAUSE THE COUNCIL HAVE NOW MADE IT CRUCIAL TO THEIR PLAN. The inspector in 2025 did confirm that she is examining the original site allocations and not this new one.

The council cannot make the claims of availability regards this site as one whole unit as it requires

• Permission from Rhodia- not given –what is their position in writing, and where is their evidence of this? They have called it “rattlechain” but it is not one site to do this at present. Why did Elias Topping not partake in this matter? Are they that arrogant that they think they can just submit a Hail Mary plan at the last minute and Sandwell council will dutifully submit this prejudicially BEFORE any planning application? At the examination I asked for this and also the comments of The Environment Agency. I am not going to take the word of already proven liars. 
• What was this memo of understanding, and why is there only reference to this now- Noted that Rhodia have not been involved in any such understanding. Why was it not signed, and who would sign it?
• NO STRATEGY AGREED, AND YET THEY CLAIM IT VIABLE! Disgraceful that SMBC are trying to involve ET and a private business in this at this stage. I MADE A POINT OF ORDER ON THIS MATTER- THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK OR HAVE REPRESENTATIONS AT THE HEARING STAGE. I MADE THIS POINT STRAIGHT AWAY AS THE EXAMINATION SHOWS. 
• 

Page 6 paragraphs 30 and 31 make it quite clear that only those who made representations at the Regulation 19 stage have a right to appear, and therefore no one else does. In light of this, The Inspector clarified that she wanted to hear their position for clarity. 

• The Council claim they do not endorse the strategy or comments, and yet they have tacked them on to their statement- so they obviously and prejudicially do. The evidence is not “detailed” at all. They ignore p4 chemistry and the lagoon owners who make no comment- as usual as I pointed out, Rhodia are gutless yellow fucking cowards, as were Albright and Wilson .

“In short, their preferred strategy has been presented to the council without detailed evidence of its achievability and without evidence that other options for remediating and delivering the site have been fully explored.”

• The Council then attempt to subvert the exam process by introducing the latecomers. THEY APPEAR TO BE PROMOTING THE AGENTS OF THE LAND OWNERS!
• “Lead party” who says they have any relevant experience or credibility in this field for such a site, in terms of p4 site remediation? What experience do they have? They are only willing if the WMCA cough up public money for which the polluter who is known never paid! “In the near future”- they have had years, and yet we are now supposed to believe that in the last few months they have a “strategy”.
• I once again and hopefully finally for the benefit of doubt prove that neither of these two sites are “brownfield land” as the council keep referring to them as.

I made the distinction that they had in fact passed a planning application for certificate of lawful use to the lagoon operating as a tip in 2004 on the basis that it had been operating as such for a very long time. The RRL land is of course also a former tipping area and both sites were before that within a quarry for Etruria marl extraction.

I also reminded the council that one officer who was indeed present at the examination made a definition of what was excluded from brownfield land which makes a complete nonsense of their claims in this plan regards rattlechain.

Council response to Portway Hill landowner in 2016

• The council above make a very simple version of the history of the two tips, and are wrong concerning “fuel ash”. I have no idea where they have got this from, but the former Mintworth site is of course a foundry sand dump which they well know. Fuel ash is not foundry sand. Foundry sand is a high quality silica sand used in metal casting processes, while fuel ash is a by-product of burning coal or other fuels. Foundry sand is typically reused multiple times in casting, whereas fuel ash is often classified as “hazardous waste” and has different disposal and recycling considerations. Are the prospective dumpers therefore going to tip this hazardous waste into a void within feet of local residents homes, under the gaze of the EA? Or are they just using this fake claim to extract money from the public purse by claiming it is too expensive to remove off site?
• The council has never investigated the RRL land site itself ! It has failed to look at digging it up in 2011 which exposed hazardous packaging waste! It was previously developed as “private open space” ,SMBC gave a string of planning applications to do this which caused “misery” for local residents!

• It is absurd calling this “a garden city”, and an increase on previous plans the council were submitting. During the hearing session Andy Miller in fact admitted that this long used phrase appears to have been “superseded” by the mass house building that the “strategic site” now defines. Why then is The Sandwell Local plan still littered with the phrase that was trotted out by the Black Country Core strategy? It “Benefits”  who? Not permanent when building on contaminated land by leaving p4 under the houses- phosphine gas. Rather than removing monitoring it will in fact add decades of future risk which the council cannot possibly know. The site is not capable of being remediated- how can they say this if they have no plan?
• Council ignore all the other paragraphs which we have pointed out in NPPF Dec2023 and mentioned in the soundness test to the inspectors questions.

Other points of rebuttal to the council’s nonsense.

• It is not an acceptable use of land to build homes on a site which the council have not been able to determine under part 2 a! FFS! Planning decisions have assumed but they have failed to operate effectively given the 12 year operation on the land in question that supposed to take 2!
• Failure to know that p4 would poison birds and receptors- The comments of the CHaIRS group.
• NPPF is not fit for purpose in this regard.
• The assessments of the council regards infrastructure defy realistic experience of real people and their opinions. We talked to families with children and pressures of school places, infrastructure etc when collecting signatures on streets in The Temple Way estate rather than the glossy hurriedly prepared “masterplan” of architects who have unlikely ever visited the area themselves let alone live there!
• The council also mention that one area along the John’s Lane track is less than seven metres. They mean seven feet not meters FFS! So they will have to buy land they don’t even own that is also contaminated! Will this cost also be expected to be from the public purse? 

RRL comments

We then get several pages promoted by Sandwell council from this private business not even based in the West Midlands county  from their ET agents. Most of this is bullshit, which I will rebut in full at a later date, but on some points I do wish to comment here.

They mention yet another consultancy involved could not find relevant evidence which is contained within the Sandwell plan examination library, and for that clarification, here is that submission below.

All of the statements that I made are backed up and may not be convenient for their Irish clients but are for the plan examination.

Sandwell local plan FOSNR evidence and references to submissions

The definition of “strategic site” differs on how many houses and is not sound on this basis.

The council  now introduce modifications at the 11^th hour for over 500 homes, and yet this is contradicted later on by the site owners agents who state 415. On this basis this point was raised by myself and I think appreciated by the inspector who asked for clarification. This then drew out proposed “strategic site policies” which we have yet to see the detail of. 

Ecological Considerations

At the examination, the inspector firstly wanted to hear more on this matter. Dr Paulson from the BBCWT confirmed that the RRL land is now considered a “potential site of importance for nature conservation” , based on the presence of the small blue butterfly which has been known to be present on the site since at least 2016. Local recorders and site surveys meet that threshold as far as they are concerned and that previous considerations and the environmental destruction seen earlier in the year did not appreciate this.

I mentioned my refused FOI request concerning the claimed environmental survey which took place prior to the clearance of trees in January and slighting comments made by Sandwell council once again parroting Elias Topping in that refusal.

“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. “

NO “MISINFORMATION” HAS BEEN SPREAD, I CAN AND HAVE BACKED UP EVERYTHING WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE- SO GO AND  FUCK YOURSELVES YOU LIARS! 

I highlighted how Sandwell council via MP Sarah Coombes letter had in fact altered the narrative of the claimed survey with semantics.

Appendix G SC01730-Sarah-Coombes-response-rattlechain

On this point, ET firstly stated that the survey was conducted in April 25- after the tree clearance, then backtracked saying it was carried out in December 2024. Of course it was pointed out that you would not expect to find much at all in that month of the year.

I think it was accepted that the claims that this site has little ecological value was misguided by the owners of the RRL land.

Other matters regards habitats and BNG sites were touched upon which was considered in week three- post coming soon.

The biggest nonsense concerns the financial claims of clean up- a figure of £50 million appears out of thin air as though touted like a straw in the wind, only to then claim that the use of the lagoon would cost US far less to dump it all into. I did point out again that Mintworth and the players in that operation should pay for the clean up that they created and left, where they were quite aware of how the BCDC rejected this idea in 1991 from the Cremer and Warner survey.

The C&W report considers options for the site, which are shown below. It is clear that the Hazardous Waste Unit and the National Rivers Authority were totally against any idea of dumping foundry sand on top of this chemical time bomb bath. They state that it would increase ground and surface water contamination.

The levels of sulphide and sulphate at the site amongst other things lead the authors to conclude-

Mr Berry of Portway claimed that remediation had come on since this time, but he would say that wouldn’t he being in this business, but I bet he would not want to live their like any members of The Kelly family paying his wages.

Rhodia rejected the idea when drawn out about it in 2011, (see PDF evidence base again above in this post), and this third instalment I stated was the final in the trilogy of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but just the bad and the ugly.

Contamination and Remediation

The discussion then turned to the most important issue of the case and if this proposed scheme would be achievable by 2041. Obviously I think it is bullshit that it ever could be in terms of the lagoon and its inclusion in this scheme.

I made the point that the lagoon has only been partially “remediated” if you could call it that by burying waste, which I do not. The Eastern and Western sides of the lagoon including the Eastern border of the RRL land where Rhodia used to claim that landfill gas was coming from into their site has never seen anything done at all. I also made the point that the historic AW site went off the current one and included part of the now Autobase site, so historic contamination does not end at the current fence line!

On white phosphorus, I reiterated the dangers of this chemical and its associated breakdown products- most notably phosphine gas. That appendices and relevant links within it can be read below. I also explained my historic knowledge of the site and the issues surrounding the P4 systemically poisoned birds.

Appendix C white phosphorus and legacy

I mentioned the involvement of Marianne Walsh and her comments regards Rattlechain made to the EA previously (see also evidence base PDF above in this post), and us in light of her experience of this chemical in a remediation setting.

I also reminded the inspector of comments the EA had made in 2011 regards the scheme where they had expressed the same concerns – notably in the US superfund site at East Michaud where phosphine gas had been generated after capping.

17P_-_Environment_Agency

In terms of ET and newcomers Portway Remediation, I found their comments pretty vague as to how they intend to carry out works on a site they have yet to even examine let alone their clients! Certainly I do hope the inspector considers this as a soundness test of achievability by 2041.

Another matter I raised concerned air quality, a big buzz theme of late to local authorities and their war on cars and creation of fascistic “15 minute cities”.

The video on the council website lasts for some time, but the first two and a half hours are the discussion are about this site.

Sandwell Local Plan Examination Matter 9: Site Allocations – Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council – Civico

I have had a great deal of positive feedback from residents and other observers about the points I made, thank you for that,  and I don’t think that much more can have been said. 

A lethal dose of white phosphorus fits on the end of the nose of the Queen or now King on a 1p piece. Is it acceptable to bury tens of tonnes of this material under peoples homes and forget it is there?

With Rattlechain lagoon again being in focus of late regards the ill conceived Sandwell local plan and its examination-( a further update on that for weeks 2 and 3 coming soon), it is with interest that a new sign has magically appeared prior to this on those infamous turquoise gates.

I looked at how Rhodia’s consultants ERM had added new signage around the fence perimeter in this post. 

The Environment Agency sign is a new addition however with their contact numbers- something missing for some time off the main gates, and possibly a licence/permit breach that has only just been discovered and corrected?

Added 4/9/25

It is perhaps a bit laughably late for this as the EA have never been a competent regulator for this site and are unable to real time track the environmental fate of white phosphorus in this lagoon or historically into the water pumped to the Birmingham Mainline canal. They also make little in the way of comment as to the future of this site and are no doubt under pressure from political scum to allow developments that will harm future occupiers as well as existing residents- whatever failed “safeguards” they claim will be retained from changes to the planning regime.

Now viewed by a posse of Kents, rattlechain retains its belated cctv but yet the eye of Sauron appears fixed in gaze at land on the Duport’s tip, the scene of ecocide earlier in the year. Maybe the “discussions” between Rhodia and the other site owners are not as clear cut as the latter try to make out and they are safeguarding their own site from the prospective tippers.

The “chemically treated water” remains in situ in the lagoon even if the faded sign about that is now not so clear.

Time does not erase the “danger” of manmade chemicals and their environmental fate.

Albright and Wilson’s 1950’s advertising was somewhat creepy as well as bizarre, as I looked at on this page, and also in the previous post in their 1954 annual accounts.

Another ad however I have found looks as though notorious reprobate Charles Salvador, aka Charlie Bronson has somehow gone back in time and is advertising Midand Silicones for the Oldbury based environmental crims!

I am having none of “Captain Reece”- that’s Charlie! Somewhere in a parallel universe he must have escaped in that plane after taking hostages , and maybe even asked them to call him “Captain” whilst tickling his feet. 😆

Midand silicones would end up doing less time than Chuck, lasting 25 years before AW departed.

The post war Albright and Wilson, having benefitted heavily from that war were at the peak of their controlling powers in the early 1950’s. They ran Oldbury, and had for some time with ratty Wilson and fan boy industrialists in political office. The Oldbury and Widnes operations stemmed other production units at Portishead as well as Kirby and a new venture in silicones in Barry, South Wales.  Abroad there were also plants at Varennes in Canada and Yarraville, Australia.

Another artefact I have come across from 1955 shows the accounts of AW from the previous year. Ratty Wilson is revealed to still be chairman of the board, and allied to this the managing director- the war dodger Bill Albright. By now familiar “home guard” employees like Sydney Barratt and Keith Piercy had given up playing soldiers and were also directors. Barratt had in fact replaced ratty 2 Wilson- Christopher as secretary that year, but remained on the board as he had for many years.

I have scanned most of this booklet minus the boring financial figures, but some interesting points come from the rest of it and rodent Wilson’s statement.

Wilson cooking the books

The production of their deadly white phosphorus was increasing, and their fingers were in many pies

Drawing looks like the iconic Oldbury phosphoric acid towers

Missing of course are details like The Oldbury smell, which had been a local concern since the end of the previous decade, and was at its most foul around this time.

By far the most interesting part of this for me are the advertisements at the end, showcasing the AW products at this time- their “chemicals for industry” mantra. I have seen most of these before and offered observations of them HERE. Some however are new.

The blight of phosphoric acid was not giving people what they needed in Oldbury

The picture on the right of a young Roger Moore I looked at HERE.  

Mr PVC man I had not seen before. Phthalates, lead and vinyl chloride- a carcinogen are all harmful materials associated with this common material from this time, making this product  far from safe or environmentally friendly, but of course industry does not care about that.

The much lauded calgon and the South Wales silicones plant. The site at Barry would make losses for AW for several years , as did the early production of p4 at Portishead.

The Carbon tetrachloride ad – another cancer product  I have looked at before, but the farmer and his crop is a new one which is of very great interest around this time. AW were Nazi heirs when it came to insecticide production. It is this exact production at Oldbury through malathion which produced “The Oldbury smell” and so how absurd that they include this in this brochure- a perfect example of how industry could not give a shit about the impacts of its effects on its residential neighbours.

fuck the “poor” millionaire farmers, what about local residents?

More Calgon. The dishwasher I have seen before , but “ernie” the milko is a new one for me. Of course phosphates would see the rise of environmental pollution in lakes and Rivers wherever they have been used. But that is exactly the problem with Albright and Wilson and the “problem-reaction-solution” (chemicals for industry) model which they used throughout their lifetime, and one which the chemical industry and its allied big pharma shills still employ today to dupe the public with their financial avarice fraud.

This town, still the centre of political life in Sandwell has at its core a legacy of the worst kind of chemical polluting industries, glorified by useful idiots but mainly the political class who in some form have benefitted financially from shilling for them or in the early days being from those vile polluting industries themselves.

The formation of the Municipal Borough in 1935 had the dirty fingerprints of Albright and Wilson and their fellow polluters all over them as the hapless folk who were employed by these scumbags were whipped up into a frenzy for “autonomy” , “self governance”, “localism democracy” or some other bullshit phrase just to get their manipulators into power- in this case directly the seed of John Edward Wilson- the founder of the company.

His rat faced grandson, Kenneth was the first mayor of the new borough.

I recently came across an original specimen of the “charter souvenir” for the occasion of the borough’s formation- now some 90 years later. Priced at 6 pence, it gives a very interesting observation into the control and coercion at work in this pre WW2 era, and of those pulling the strings.

I have scanned the whole thing which you can read as a PDF below. I’ll pick out and highlight a few things that interested me however in this post.

Olbury 1935 The Rotten Borough forms

The motto of the borough “Antiquum Decus Floreat” translates to “Let its ancient glory flourish.” The Old English translation of ‘Ealdenbyrig’, Eald is  for ‘old’, Byrig is the plural of ‘burh’ – a burh being a fortification or fortified town. I’m not sure it was ever a “glorious” place, but certainly wasn’t after the industrial polluters arrived on the scene.

A few familiar faces arise with the then town councillors, a right bunch of fiddlers some of them look as well. The names Pollock- of Accles and Pollock fame, as well as ratty Wilson are noted, as are the AW rimmer Smellsome, who would later of course go on to defend his fellow freemason friends in Trinity Street after the Oldbury smell fiasco.

The pussy whisperer

If you like your history, and how things have changed then do read the write up, but do beware that those in charge were glorifying themselves through masonic practices with maces, chains and badges- all donated by the said chemical polluters to pollute the minds as well as the lungs. Their successors in 2025 are little different. Hell I would not be surprised if some of the familiar names are even related to that scum.

The idea of attempting to relink the demise of two brickworks operations, filled over with toxic wastes and foundry sands into some co-disposal super tip to use as a foundation for housing is absurd, and yet here we are with this old chestnut rejected in 1990 but for some strange reason still flickering like a phoenix from the flames.

It should be made clear  that the only site with the provenance “rattlechain” at this point in time and at any time going forward from this point in time should be the lagoon, as all trace of brickmaking had long gone only to be replaced by appalling tipping operations over the remnants of a brickworks. Unfortunately the mistake in still associating this site as “rattlechain” by subsequent licences and authorities has been misused in trying to link the sites together to suit commercial activities.

These “two tips” are no longer linked, and nor should they ever be. THEY HAVE SEPARATE HISTORIES WHICH ARE SUMMARISED BELOW. We are where we are, so let no man nor any of their agents try to claim that the two are still linked. Only thoughts of avarice connect them. 

rattlechain lagoon site history

formerrattlechainbrickworksduportstip site history

The worst of times

BR7P51 Aerial view of white phosphorus chemical waste disposal in Rattlechain Lagoon, St John’s Lane, Tividale, Sandwell, England, Britain, Uk

Having been contacted by many frustrated and worried people across the country about landfill sites in their backyard, it is clear that the Government’s insane Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a recipe for irreversible environmental damage and future human health scandals that will probably only unravel into the 2060’s or beyond, that is of course after the decades of denial by political scum and others whom they serve in the developer industry.

Historic landfills are bad news, and should not be built on, EVER and not “cleaned up” as morons like Andy Street and Richard Parker appear to think is possible without serious consequences for those who live on the border of such sites, built because more morons claimed they were “safe” to do so. 

The Environment Agency defines an historic landfill as a site where there is no environmental permit in force.

“A historic (closed) landfill site is one where there is no PPC [Pollution Prevention and Control] permit or waste management licence currently in force. This includes sites that existed before the waste licensing regime, if a site has been licensed in the past, and this licence has been revoked, ceased to exist or surrendered and a certificate of completion has been issued” 

Rattlechain lagoon still does have an environmental permit but its adjacent neighbour does not. I have looked at the issues of how the EA buried and erased much information about such sites HERE.

Local authorities appear to have a dire record of disseminating information or responding to concerned residents about landfill sites which they are supposed to be monitoring under The Environmental Protection Act. My experiences with Sandwell Council have been abysmal to say the least in this regard.

There is too little info about historic wastes and the terms “inert” and commercial” just do not cut it with reliable information- for that you need to see the original licences, which I have made many available in the West Midlands, but as can be seen by those, the wording was so lousy and ambiguous that they were not adequate safe guards for anyone in the future to rely on.

The maps that the EA have provided on their website appear to have replaced some of the old what’s in your backyard feature that they previously removed, and which I also took them to task over in the FOI request I put in some years ago.

The maps can be viewed at the link below. Zoom in and view the pink cross hatched polygons and you will also find some very basic info within these pop ups as to when the site received waste and licence was surrendered etc. This is by no means accurate however, and should be read with caution, as rattlechain lagoon contains no information at all, even though the EA know bloody well what is in there, and if they don’t, well read this website FFS!

Untitled map

It is interesting to note the scale of polygons around the black country area compared to Birmingham and Smethwick and outskirts which escape the depravity of industrial wastes. It is a disproportionate burden around Oldbury and Tipton, where unscrupulous bastards sold off marl holes for this very purpose, only for more unscrupulous bastards to infill them with more solid wastes to build houses upon. The legacy of industry and its political supporters in boroughs like the very ironically named “Sandwell” have left us with nothing but blots on the landscape to replace the dug out pits that went before them.

Recently, the “tramp phosphorus” botherers were spotted on site doing their annual monitoring rounds of boreholes. This has been ongoing for some years but the reasons and rationale are not what they seem for the public point of view. The white phosphorus in this lake is not going to go away, long after any generations of anyone living today have also snuffed it. Bury it, pretend it isn’t there, but it is.

Environmental consultancies are about producing results, and not recording them for their clients. We have yet to see the “Rhodia” end game for this site, and yet ERM dutifully come back as the guardian’s that were never there when wildlife was being poisoned by their pay masters. Where the fuck were the checks and balances then?

More interestingly, it appears that whoever is in charge of this site now has decided to up the notices, and more interestingly, tweak some of the wording.

So the covered hoarding which has largely faded into memory next to the canal has a new buddy with other stick on signs stuck over that.

For the record, here is what that sign actually said when it was in more pristine condition.

They accepted “no responsibility” and yet the new signs have the bolt on

“except where caused by the negligence of the company.”

I wonder what that is all about?

Old sign still there- you have 15 seconds to comply

But gone are the old dialling code numbers that got you through to the lobby at Trinity Street. 01303 number is a Folkestone Kent number FFS!  Enter “Robowatch”.

So this site is now being “monitored” by AI from miles away down South.

According to their website, this outfit states

“We also offer security surveillance solutions for large construction sites, vacant properties, commercial buildings, and solar farms, providing top-rated site security surveillance services across diverse environments. Our 24/7 site security surveillance systems give you peace of mind, knowing that your property is under constant protection.” 

I’m not sure what “protection” rattlechain lagoon needs, though maybe the public needs protection from the arseholes that dumped dangerous toxic waste into their to start with.

As for the 1987 film inspired name of this company, I am not sure the site operators ever complied with the three primary directives.

Serve the public trust

You cannot trust any version of this company from Albright and Wilson to Rhodia- the same jokers at the helm and the same liars.

Protect the innocent

They poisoned their own staff, and poisoned birds on this lake.

Uphold the law. 

Broke it multiple times for site breaches and failures at their own site under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Of course Directive 4 means that “robowatch” will never act against its paymaster controller or allow them to be blamed by “except where caused by the negligence of the company.” 

You can see what you want to be seen with cctv, and you can also turn a blind eye when it suits you. 😉