![\"\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Shidas-Lane-12-1999.jpg\")
<\/a>Shidas lagoon Google Earth 12\/1999. <\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n This is the second of three posts concerning this abandoned former waste disposal lake in Oldbury, the first of which can be read HERE<\/a>. It also serves as a warning about the so called “brownfield” sites promoted by certain politicians using public money<\/strong> to put right dire private company charades.<\/p>\n The demise of Accles and Pollock, and their “Apollo Sports” brand appears to have affected their operations at their Paddock works lagoon site in terms of limiting their activities. I am not sure however as to why it had apparently appeared to have been allowed to have continued for so long- especially after the creation of the Environment Agency in 1996.<\/p>\n In apparent receivership, their receivers PWC were sent the following Section 41 notice<\/a> by The Environment Agency on 12\/2\/2002<\/strong>.<\/p>\n SECTION41 NOTICE<\/a><\/p>\n This appears to be more about failure to pay the EA money, rather than failure to operate such a disgusting site (which was the regulator’s failure), to the tune of \u00a333,225<\/span><\/strong>. This suspended the licence to tip waste until the debt had been paid.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some relevant information is contained in the Companies house receivers report (April 2000) below.<\/p>\n companies_house_document<\/a><\/p>\n marketing a site for “re-development or for existing use”<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Estimates that it would cost \u00a31.5 million to remediate the acid lake, disingenuously referred to here as simply “the marl hole”<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Concern had been expressed however publicly about this mothballed site well before the EA stepped in as debt collectors. The following article is taken from the 29\/5\/2001<\/strong> Express and Star<\/strong> where Conservative Councillor Bill Archer was calling for a probe into the acid waste lagoon. It is interesting to note that Bill Archer was a Wednesbury councillor, but at this time got involved in many areas where the local labour councillors failed to act or ask any questions. I would state that in Oldbury ward, there were and remain many questions about such historic hazardous waste dumps, and the way in which they have been effectively abandoned, and why political action or criticism of these industrial concerns has been so mute?<\/p>\n The article confirms that the company had gone bust in 2000, but the lagoon and its contents had sat idle. The EA claim that no leakage into controlled waters had taken place, but I am somewhat sceptical that the EA were even monitoring for this given their officer’s abysmal record at the time at rattlechain lagoon as well as elsewhere in the local area.<\/p>\n Local environmental campaigner Fred Hadley had found that permission to tip at the site was still valid, despite the company no longer being active. The EA confirmed that the licence had not been surrendered. (I have never been sure as to if this Fred Hadley was the same ex-employee of Albright and Wilson, but perhaps not).<\/p>\n “Anybody could buy it and carry on dumping.”<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article also states the quantities of materials allowed to be deposited.<\/p>\n The failure of Sandwell council to comment is also noted in this regard, when they allowed the said operation to continue for many years.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Fred Hadley had in fact been involved in other matters in the local area including Allsopps Quarry. He also spoke out about the tipping misery continuing at the former Duport’s tip<\/a> development area by rattlechain lagoon being extended. It is therefore quite ironic as to what transpired with the acid lake next, and the man must be hailed as some form of prophet in this regard, as someone did come along and dump more waste, that entity being the same one who had despoiled the land at both Coneygree in Tipton<\/a>, as well as the site he had commented on in Tividale.<\/p>\n Shidas\u00a0 lagoon 12\/2001 Google Earth<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n Shidas\u00a0 Lagoon 10\/2003. Google Earth<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n In 2004 Mintworth<\/strong> appeared on the scene, obviously looking for a brand-new dumping opportunity to offload more sand and associated into a vacant hole. They had at this point remember achieved their twin peaks in the local area already with Duport and Coneygree, (without finalising either for anything), but why not go for the triple!<\/p>\n This application would be numbered DC\/04\/42934.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It is interesting to note that in correspondence form B submitted with this application, the owners of the site are listed as “CLEEVE INVESTMENTS LIMITED”<\/span><\/strong>– a company registered in Jersey<\/strong>. But who exactly were their directors? We will look at this company and their activities in the third part of this instalment.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It appears from correspondence that early discussions and meetings had taken place with some of the key players in the SMBC planning department at this time, principally John “it’s a crap site for residential” Baylay,<\/strong> and Tony Rice<\/strong>. Both of these individuals would be heavily involved with Mintworth’s desire to acquire planning permission to build houses on the former Tividale sewage works, (“the crap site for residential”<\/a>), and the council opposition to this in light of the adjacency to rattechain lagoon. This matter was ongoing at this time, and there is no doubt that solicitors acting for Mintworth are mischievous in their line of questioning in attempting to trip up the SMBC planning duo in respect of this, using this separate planning application vehicle.<\/p>\n So who were the owners of the site- the same as your “clients” but by a different name?<\/p><\/div>\n There is no mention of “calcium phosphate sludge” being used at all at the Apollo lagoon in its entire history<\/strong>, and this was never a part of the waste from this site. It is of course a reference to the fake waste profile put forward by Albright and Wilson\/ Rhodia at rattlechain- which was heavily contaminated by other hazardous chemicals mixed in with this. This is a pathetic question from this law firm, as is the lead on about restoration. Neither has anything to do with this application- and not of rattlechain either. They are not therefore “SEPARATE AND DISCRETE MATTERS<\/b>” but<\/b><\/span>\u00a0a ruse to be used at a future planning enquiry against the council.<\/b><\/p>\n There is then the bizarre claim that Mintworth were considering tipping asbestos waste at this site, which I think is absolute bollocks. There is obviously more at play with this question, and I am not entirely sure what they were getting at here in respect of the Apollo lagoon itself. The council would be very unlikely to grant such permission for this type of material, or if the EA would even allow it either.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Robert Lee<\/strong> of SMBC eventually wrote a reply to this nonsense in September, perhaps thinking carefully about the answers and in light of the fact of the ongoing issue with the council’s refusal of the sewage works scheme and upcoming planning enquiry.<\/p>\n The points to take here are<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the following letter dated 16th March 2004<\/strong>, the EA responds to John Baylay , this deals with calcium phosphate, (nothing to do with this application whatsoever) but is interesting in its statements from a rattlechain perspective.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_COMMENTS-449611<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The type of material deposited in rattlechain lagoon was from the waste processes of their factory site, and so would be classed as “hazardous waste”<\/span> given that it contained just that. The percentage within that is irrelevant, as is the fact that if this were pure calcium phosphate- a commercial material as highlighted, Rhodia would not be throwing it away but selling it. As the process of recovery of this material is not cost effective, it means that the sludge is hazardous. This little stunt from Mintworth and their solicitors was not really very clever and did not help their cause.<\/p>\n There are reasons why Mintworth were pursuing this (i) Mintworth trying to get an opinion on the nature of waste they claimed was being dumped at rattlechain from the EA\/council perspective.<\/p>\n (ii) to overcome Rhodia’s\/Eversheds objections potentially to the sewage works scheme- they would have another alternative site to dump into- as a potential land exchange deal with Mintworth?<\/p>\n (iii) Did they think that they could fill the Apollo lagoon with calcium phosphate themselves as a side line?<\/p>\n The application details are listed below. N.B The “inert material”<\/strong> is not specified, but we all know that it would not be cottage cheese.\u00a0 \ud83d\ude06<\/p>\n There is very little information provided in the received form dated 6th July 2004,<\/strong> especially as to what end use was being considered.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-FULL__MAJOR_-616265<\/a><\/p>\n A supporting letter from the agent of Bea Landscape Design<\/strong>, whom I believe have direct family connection to those at Mintworth can be read below.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-SUPPORTING_LETTER_FROM_AGENT-449610<\/a><\/p>\n The proposed contours of BEA can be found below.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-PROPOSED_CONTOURS-22681<\/a><\/p>\n There is a transport statement submitted which can be read below about how the proposed material would be delivered to the site, in light of it being in a major commercial vehicle and business area- not least the council tip over the road.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-SUPPORTING_LETTERS-449609<\/a><\/p>\n There are two interesting observations in this document-<\/p>\n (i) the proposed number of loads infilling this site per hour at 15, though it is not stated where they were coming from or from what distance- this causing more issues outside of the immediate area itself?<\/p>\n (ii) The proposed timescale that the works would be taking place in- i.e “between 3 and 4 years”<\/em>. We of course know Mintworth’s failure to deliver schemes to planning permission timescale at both Coneygre, and certainly at the Duport\/sewage works debacle which lasted over twice as long as proposed<\/a>– and so it would prove with this also!<\/p>\n The council appeared to have their own concerns, and these were allegedly updated in 2005, which can be read below.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-TRANSPORT_STATEMENT_ADDENDUM-449604<\/a><\/p>\n Once again, we get yet another report from Sladen Associates, (yawn)<\/strong> who appear in every Mintworth planning application praising the benefits of tipping foundry sand into holes, without any apparent fallout or concern in doing so.<\/p>\n There is a history of the site blended with a very basic summary of the “acidic” water they claim was dumped into here. As evidenced by the site licence<\/a>, there was far more going on than this, but this didn’t suit the proposal to infill.<\/p>\n More concerningly, we get exactly the same delay at dealing with mine shaft issues and settlement as I have seen with the planning applications at Coneygree. Sladen claim that these aspects are not important for this application, yet they are<\/strong> because you do not just go to the effort of offloading something into a hole without some end purpose in mind? Or do you if you are just dumping a waste material?<\/p>\n They note “potential” for some ground and ground water contamination\u00a0 \ud83d\ude44 and even have the guile to mention foundry sand, so oft used by their clients for similar schemes, and note the contamination of this sand with metals and organic binders. This had been pointed out in fact to their clients during discussions about the “rattlechain tip” licence in the early 1990’s.<\/p>\n Due to the poor controls discussed before in the weak licence for this site from 1978, and of course for decades of no licence prior to this, I think the word “potential” is rather disingenuous.<\/p>\n There is then the long enviro check report, which as ever pads out such reports. The most interesting thing regards this is the fact that the site is confirmed to be on top of a historic landfill site SL137<\/strong>, that we know of course the licence of which had never been surrendered. It is worth once again reading the licence and what it allowed<\/a>, though Sladen omit such matters.<\/p>\n Shidas Lane lagoon waste management licence and modifications<\/a><\/p>\n DC_04_42934-PRELIMINARY_GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL_ASSESSMENT-22679<\/a><\/p>\n The following method statements were also submitted by Sladen.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-ATTACHMENT_A_METHOD_STATEMENT-907300<\/a><\/p>\n This dealt with the three mine shafts, which it considered “not practicable to treat” prior to infilling. Why not? One would note if this was widely adopted methodology, as to why their clients had failed to achieve this at their Coneygree site, where they were also advising them in planning applications.<\/p>\n Further descriptions are given as to the placement of the fill which can be read below.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-ATTACHMENT_B_METHOD_STATEMENT-907301<\/a><\/p>\n A diagram of this method statement is shown below.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-PROPOSED_LAGOON_INFILLING_WORKS-907302<\/a><\/p>\n Though Sladen describe not disturbing the sludge within the lagoon, I am not sure that they adequately characterise what they are actually filling over.<\/p>\n The Environment Agency responded to the consultation below in a letter dated 23\/8\/2004. <\/strong>Their only comments at this time were standard drainage and pollution prevention issues.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_COMMENTS-449611<\/a><\/p>\n Further letters would be received from them inviting further questions of the applicants. The letter of 30\/3\/2005<\/strong> stated that there was a “previous” site licence which had been “disclaimed” by the liquidators.<\/p>\n It would therefore require a new PPC permit to undertake any infilling. They also anticipated some form of conditions to prevent pollution of contaminated lagoon water to ground water or surface waters.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_CONSULTATION-449606<\/a><\/p>\n A further letter dated 19\/5\/2005<\/strong> states that they had reviewed the Sladen report but had asked additional questions concerning the PPC permit which had not yet been received.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY_CONSULTATION-449625<\/a><\/p>\n The committee report of May 18th 2005 <\/strong>saw the following report written by John Baylay.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-COMMITTEE_REPORT_AND_SUPPORTING_PLANS-176930<\/a><\/p>\n DC_04_42934-COMMITTEE_REPORT-158331<\/a><\/p>\n This decision was deferred for further information and came back on 31\/8\/05.<\/strong><\/p>\n This states that the initial infilling would be with sand, yet no further information regards what was to be deposited on top of this were included. It is stated that it would not<\/em> be “waste”, yet of course, foundry sand is nothing other than a waste material<\/strong><\/em>, and so I am not sure why Baylay et al had not challenged or asked this point to be clarified, particularly knowing exactly what Mintworth were well known for. It is further stated that the infilling would be to the levels of the surrounding land- and we of course know that Mintworth never do that as Baylay was well aware FFS!<\/p>\n The contaminated land team at SMBC even asked what the inert materials were on 18\/5 committee report. No answer came as Baylay’s updated report states<\/p>\n 18\/5 report<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 31\/ 8 report<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n DC_04_42934-COMMITTEE_REPORT_AND_SUPPORTING_PLANS-176930<\/a><\/p>\n Unsurprisingly of course, the application was passed with 22 conditions attached.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-GRANT_PERMISSION_SUBJECT_TO_CONDITIONS-178522<\/a><\/p>\n Some of these specified that the applicants needed to state what the materials were, as well as not exceeding the proposed levels. Condition 18 especially should be noted.<\/p>\n “18. The finished levels shall not exceed those shown on the approved plans”<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Some time passed before\u00a0Sladen Associates letter regarding the conditions. This is dated 31st January 2006, <\/strong>and we finally are told that the inert material was to be “clean crushed rock sand” and not foundry sand. Mintworth would be starting dumping in the next month.<\/strong><\/p>\n Also please note that they “agreed” to condition 18 in that the levels would not be exceeded, and thus committed to this condition without excuses being made. The fact that they were seeking for the conditions to be discharged after agreeing would be shown to be a disingenuous lie on that basis.<\/p>\n An agreement signed by Jim Sladen copying in Mintworth<\/p><\/div>\n DC_04_42934-DISCHARGE_OF_PRELIMINARY_CONDITIONS_LETTER-907299<\/a><\/p>\n The EA response was pretty short. Given their experiences with this company over the previous two decades, was it really believable that they would comply with the conditions as passed? Past experience had shown that NOT to be the case.<\/p>\n Another email however from a P Langford in SMBC stated that there were still points of concern regards the works.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-FURTHER_INFO_REGARDING_DISCHARGE_OF_CONDITONS_LETTER-907297 (1)<\/a><\/p>\n Similarly, the contaminated land team in Sandwell, who of course we know are shit, also had very little to say. All they appear to be interested in are theoretical reports claiming that nothing is amiss with the works. It is exactly this type of exercise as to why there is so much contaminated land in Sandwell to start with. As it is, I am not convinced that the likes of Baylay et al would have even studied or bothered to read or challenge anything in such, given their previous failures to do so.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-CONSULTATION_RESPONSE-907293<\/a><\/p>\n John Baylay wrote to Sladen on 20\/3\/2006<\/strong> confirming the discharge of several conditions.<\/p>\n DC_04_42934-CONFIRMATION_OF_DISCHARGE_OF_CONDITIONS-907305<\/a><\/p>\n We can see that in 2006, a perimeter track present around the lagoon, and infilling works apparently proceeding. As with their other sites, the greenery around the lake has been destroyed.<\/p>\n Shidas lagoon Google Earth 11\/2006<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n The following month reveals even further demise of the surroundings and the pool receding under the dune sands of Mintworth.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>