What was mentioned in this vacuous pretty picture laden nonsense (but not included), was the actual detail in the so called “SWOT” analysis. This stands for Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
We wanted to know who and what organisations attended the meeting held without local community consultation.
WHAT DID WE ASK AND WHAT DID THEY KNOW?
“With reference to the recently published Dudley Port Supplementary Planning document, at page 8 it states
“a brief summary of the analysis is provided below. the full SWOT analysis is provided within the appendices.”
I am requesting the full appendices which appear absent from this document and the full SWOT analysis.
Can I also request the names of all organisations which attended the event mentioned and officers of SMBC who attended ,held in the Balaji temple, Dudley Road East, Oldbury on 7/7/2015, which I note does not appear to involve members of the public who actually live in the area.“
The council replied by including the missing link, ie THE SWOT ANALYSIS.
They also commented.
“In regards to the Black Country Garden City Workshop held at the Balaji Temple on 7th
July 2015, representatives from the following organisations were in
attendance: MADE, Sandwell M.B.C., Dudley M.B.C., Walsall M.B.C.,
Wolverhampton M.B.C., Black Country Consortium, Accord Housing, Canals and Rivers Trust. The officers from Sandwell MBC who attended were Philippa Smith, Wayne Moore, James Holliday, Joshua Singh.”
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
The SWOT analysis provides a very interesting insight into this whole scheme, and underlines what we already know regards the “Threats”. The threats are summarised but not fully elucidated, and revealing in that the land off Newcomen Drive open space proposals (former Coneygre site), are financially not sound because of remediation constraints.
“LACK OF GAP FUNDING TO REMEDIATE LIMESTONE MINE HOUSING ACCOMODATION AT CONEYGREE”
What is not revealed in this threat is that the same land owner of this site also owns the area around the former Rattlechain brickworks/Duport’s Tip having been apparently sold them by the former dumper of foundry sand on both. Neither of these two schemes have produced ANY form of action within the last several years, and one has to ask WHY?
In 2008, documents submitted by the then owners planning agents revealed that to bring the site in line for end industrial use would cost in the region of £10,000,000, and would not be a viable option. This would of course increase costs significantly for residential end use with the greater need for building control compliance, and that we are now 14 years on. Despite planning approval being granted on appeal, and then renewed in 2012 the scheme has now lapsed without a sausage being done on site.
Is it acceptable that someone can sit on land and wait for a tax payer money tree to come along and pay for site restoration/remediation that they themselves are clearly not willing or are financially unable to bring forward themselves, let alone “pay” for polluting it in the first place?
“CONTAMINATED LAND REMEDIATION COSTS”
The land at Duport’s tip would be classed as “contaminated” if it were brought forward for development because it would not be safe to live in such areas without remediation. I have touched on some of the issues surrounding the old brickworks site and especially the former so called “Duport’s tip”- an absolute disgrace that should never have happened because of the conman Sydney Sheldon.
Who wants to live next to a gassing toxic waste lagoon classed as a “hazardous waste site” that still has yet to be remediated? Anyone? Does anyone want to risk their families health in the years to come when the outcomes of living next to this site on human health are currently not known?
During works by Mintworth in the 1990’s people were complaining about asthma on the Temple Way Estate being elevated by the amounts of foundry sand being churned up and spread. I will go into more detail on this in an upcoming blog post, but soil derived dust was something that was never dealt with sufficiently within the terms of the licence issued.