{"id":16164,"date":"2024-09-23T10:38:51","date_gmt":"2024-09-23T10:38:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/?p=16164"},"modified":"2025-10-19T17:42:19","modified_gmt":"2025-10-19T17:42:19","slug":"the-sandwell-plan-the-same-old-carry-on-cowboy-crap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/?p=16164","title":{"rendered":"The Sandwell Plan= The same old carry on cowboy crap"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

And so we come to the great battle of our time- a high noon show down in stopping housing on Rattlechain and the longstanding plans of foundry sand dumping conmen who fucked off the scene when they could no longer justify to even bent planning officers in Sandwell Council any further excuses for window dressing and landscaping materials they had soiled the area with.<\/p>\n

A BRIEF HISTORY OF HOW THE WEST WASN’T WON.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1988, The Black Country Development Corporation (BCDC) <\/strong>meddled in this regard by attempting to “masterplan” the area and failing totally by allowing the dumping of thousands of tonnes of foundry sand which is still all there. The big idea in creating BIG HEAP on the hill was to infill rattlechain lagoon with the waste- a complete non starter back then, estimated in 1990 prices, the cost of off site disposal of waste as an option was put at \u00a33.325 Million<\/span><\/strong>. An alternative on site repository could have cost \u00a32.95 million<\/strong><\/span>. It is worth noting that if Mintworth and co’s greed for quick development had not taken over, this could have been achieved using the former sewage works.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here for the record is how much that estimate would translate to today- nearly \u00a38 Million.<\/span><\/strong> Someone had better get robbing a stagecoach or the local bank, but no doubt the tax payer will be expected to pick up the tab by some political mayoral wanker who thinks the idea is a goer.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Back in the 90’s the absolute shambles “misery” of an operation on this site, estimated at two years and which unfolded for ten can be read HERE. <\/a><\/b>Whilst housing was built on the sewage works, and areas off Macdonald Close, the hardest areas were left in situ. DO REMEMBER THAT RATTLECHAIN LAGOON ITSELF HAS NOT BEEN REMEDIATED- ONLY TWO SIDES WERE EVER MESSED WITH BY THE BELGIANS IN 2013. AS FOR THE FORMER MINTWORTH LAND, ASIDE FROM A TATTING OPERATION FOR METAL IN 2010<\/a>, THAT ALSO REMAINS UNREMEDIATED AND THE DUMPING THAT WENT ON HERE AND ITS PROVENANCE HAS BEEN NOTED.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The days of BCDC<\/strong> have been repackaged as The West Midlands Combined Authority<\/strong>, with no mandate for its creation. It is an opportunity to use public money for rich men’s monopoly construction projects, gaslighting the public that they will benefit, when of course they will not.<\/p>\n

Nowadays, the ludicrous “Garden City” agenda, originally a Quaker WEF liberal eugenicist psy-op has been introduced in a desperate attempt to greenwash rampant destruction of wildlife habitat in urban areas, with Dudley Port- or more accurately Tividale being swallowed into a mass housebuilding fraud that will destroy wildlife corridors along the canals and Tipton’s only Nature Reserve- Sheepwash. There are some unusual and rare habitats and species that have grown on the land around rattlechain, and they need to be protected.<\/p>\n

We have opposed this bullshit for a very long time, and will fight to the bitter end to stop it. Every ten years Sandwell council as well as most others publish a plan which identifies housing and other needs for the next ten years, and sometimes further. It used to be known as “The Unitary Development Plan”, where the area was described as “white land” with no specific planning designation. It was however identified within “regeneration corridor 9” in the later published “Black Country Core Strategy” but without anything materialising since.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

THE 2012 Site allocation document.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This resulted in a public enquiry which took place in 2011, before Rhodia had decided to tart up their site and Mintworth were still potting around, with the mysterious “Denver Limited”<\/strong> registered in Jersey claiming to own the land. LOL \ud83d\ude42 \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n

When called out on the bullshit idea to package the site with Rattlechain lagoon, their agents promptly dropped that idea when Rhodia described the relationship on talks about joining the land as “passive”<\/em><\/strong>– ,meaning fuck all likely hood!<\/p>\n

Despite remaining in the then plan, the inspector himself commented that he thought it unlikely that the scheme would go ahead- and so that proved with time given that we are now 13 years on and no plan.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The council believed that 411<\/strong> houses could be slotted into this area.<\/p><\/div>\n

“However, the technical challenges mean remediation could prove to be financially prohibitive or technically impossible and I have serious doubts that the full potential of this site can be realised before 2021.” Paul Crysell planning Inspector.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Dudley Post Supplementary planning document 2017<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This bullshit tack on was an attempt by SMBC planning policy to create a bizarre estate agent type sell of contaminated shit land claiming that housing could be built on it- leaving out much of the weaknesses and cost implications which it simply passed over without comment. I learned more about it via an FOI on the \u00a0\u201cSWOT\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0analysis<\/a>. This stands for\u00a0Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I looked at this in a post which can be read HERE.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

At the time, I started and organised a petition signed by around 400 people as residents of The Temple Way Estate and users of Sheepwash Nature Reserve.<\/p>\n

This petition was never dealt with by Sandwell Council, and here I set out the longstanding denial and excuses offered by SMBC planning policy- specifically Jim Dale stunt double Andy Miller<\/strong>, who I am sure must view me as The Rumpo Kid given my desire to paint Stodge “Garden City” Red with a warning from history.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Stodge Garden City finds its “Marshall”.<\/p><\/div>\n

It should be remembered that outline planning is an opportunity to examine schemes and determine if they are affordable and not reliant on the public purse. Schemes to identify sites should really look at affordability and who is going to pay for them BEFORE they appear on paper, and certainly not remain in plans for decades as this has when the polluter is unable or unwilling to pay. Miller’s response to the petition, which I would stress had to be chased, can be read below.<\/p>\n

DP SPD Petition Response (7)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The key points according to him, with a typically wordy explanation reminds me of some of the “clues” that this bloke pictured below gave back in the day. “Dusty bin” is rattlechain and surrounding land for sure. I have gone into some of these below, but really he offers excuses based on a framework of civil service construction rather than the merits and weaknesses of the site allocation,\u00a0 which as evidenced, has never materialised.<\/p>\n

\"Ted<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Black Country Core Strategy\/Black Country Plan and Ednam Road Dudley Council screwjob.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This was a planning and regeneration plan for the whole of the Black Country. It was used to guide planning and development decisions.<\/p>\n

The four Black Country councils (Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton) adopted this plan in 2011 and was supposed to be relevant up to 2026. It was renamed The Black Country Plan at some stage just to confuse matters, and I have gone into its unsoundness HERE<\/a>. However Dudley Council as lead organisers during a review, supposedly relevant up to 2039, decided to pull the plug and go their own way<\/a>, at which point a consultation had already started , and as mentioned in Miller’s letter at that time was in motion. I again submitted the petition at this stage, also commenting at every opportunity about the objections and unrealistic soundness of the plans in corridor 9. This document should have proceeded to examination, with the petition considered as Miller claimed it should be at the time when allocations were to be reconsidered. Obviously we then had another invention and “CONsultation.”<\/p>\n

In this plan however it was proposed that 342<\/strong> houses could be built in the area specified in two plots- without including the lagoon.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It is also of course right next to Rattlechain lagoon itself.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

SAH088 proposed that 322 homes could be built on land including the former Duport\u2019s Tip<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

SAH098 proposed a further 32 homes could be built on a strip of land lying along the river corridor off MacDonald Close.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The Sandwell Plan.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This was the bastard child of the Black Country Plan and an SMBC planning policy wet dream invention. I gave the reasons why it is not sound in its draft form and a rehash of earlier frauds HERE<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Now claimed that 511 houses could be packed into the areas also including the lagoon!<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"

As well as another 36 including land alongside the River Tame FFS!<\/p><\/div>\n

Obviously, once again, I objected to the scheme on behalf of The Friends of Sheepwash, emailed the petition and this is the receipt I initially got back from Sandwell Council Planning Policy- claiming acceptance of both.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Imagine my surprise then on receiving this email from someone called Peter Simpson<\/strong> claiming to be from the same SMBC planning policy that had days earlier accepted the petition!<\/p>\n

“Dear Mr Carroll,<\/em><\/p>\n

Thank you for your representations on the Draft Sandwell Local Plan.<\/em><\/p>\n

Unfortunately we cannot accept the\u00a0petition submitted as part of your representations as it is several years old and does not relate to the Draft Sandwell Local Plan.<\/em><\/p>\n

In light of this-\u00a0if you consider there are any other issues you wish to raise (ie that were not covered by your other representations), can you please submit them as soon as possible, and in any case by the end of January 2024 so they may be considered as part of the Draft Sandwell Local Plan Representations.<\/b><\/em><\/p>\n

Regards,<\/em><\/p>\n

Peter Simpson Planning Officer”<\/em><\/p>\n

The following email was sent in reply to this joker.<\/p>\n

“With regard to your email, can I ask to whom do you refer as “we”<\/strong><\/em> in not accepting this petition, which as you will see, and as advised by Andy Miller when it was first presented, has NEVER been accepted by Sandwell council under highly dubious excuses which I can only take to mean that the concerns of residents and site users are somehow trumped by undemocratically appointed council officers who appear hellbent on allowing housing on this site. Can I ask if this is your decision, or if not what capacity you personally have in making such cherry picking? If not you, then can you please name the officer who made this decision so that I can begin a formal complaint against them.<\/span><\/div>\n
I would note that on receipt of the comments and petition, the screen shot attachment was confirmed by planning policy.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In relation to Andy Millers response, I accept that this petition is “old”, but not as old as the failed plan to create housing on this site which has never been brought forward since the last SAD in 2011.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“As the plan was ultimately found to be sound by the inspector, and subsequently adopted, the Rattlechain allocation is a matter of fact and can only be altered\u00a0when the SAD is reviewed.<\/b>\u00a0This last point is absolutely crucial in understanding the reasons behind the Council\u2019s handling of the petition.”<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Both the BCCS and SAD are due for review. The review of the former commenced last year whilst that for the SAD will begin in this month. I am aware that you have already made representations in relation to the BCCS review and that these, in part, relate to matters relevant to the Rattlechain site. These will be dealt with as part of the BCCS preparation and no doubt will, in due course, be tested at Examination.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0I propose to treat your petition as a representation to the SAD review consultation process when this begins<\/b>\u00a0as it is clear from its wording that it is the allocation of the site itself that is at issue and therefore\u00a0the review of the SAD is the appropriate process with which to address it<\/b>.\u00a0I would however invite correspondence from you when the formal consultation takes place confirming that the petition is to be regarded as such.<\/b>\u00a0The concerns expressed can then be considered as part of the statutory process for the plans preparation. “<\/b><\/span><\/em><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/div>\n
“I appreciate that the planning process is both lengthy and complex, and that it may at times appear that matters are being inadequately dealt with. However,\u00a0I trust that the above explains the situation and reassures you that the petition will be properly considered and dealt with at the appropriate time.”<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/div>\n
Can I therefore state that as the BCCS collapsed due to Dudley Council’s actions, and that this spawned the Sandwell local Plan, that Andy Miller’s statements are either taken as fact and that this IS the opportunity and “appropriate time” to present the petition which he outlines as it IS reviewing the allocations, OR that he was wrong in advising me of this at the time? The timing of the petition being “old” is entirely down to the delay in review of the SAD.\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
Either way, I will produce these emails at the examination stage and the inspector will see how SMBC treats petitions and or in this case, DOES NOT whenever they are produced at “the appropriate time”.<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
The Sandwell plan, IS the successor plan to the original 2011 adopted SAD, It is therefore the only place as Mr Miller stated that it should now be taken into consideration. Timescales are not relevant.\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
I would like this email to go on record as part of the submission you refer to, and expect an acknowledgement of receipt before the end of January. I can of course produce evidence that this email was sent to you and others before this expiry date.”<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n

As explained here in the chain, the petition was signed by around 400 people , residents and site users of sheepwash, and in the attached letter from Andy Miller, I was led to believe that this would be taken into consideration when the chance to object to site allocations was available. Mr Simpson\u00a0 failed to reply to my email, and so I do not accept his dismissal of it without valid explanation. I emailed the three ward councillors for Great Bridge, with only Will Gill bothering to respond. He did not receive a response from Simpson either! I then emailed him again where he finally got the response below – again from Miller.<\/p>\n

miller smbc<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Miller’s response is typical weasel antics, defended by “matters out of our control gov” and the lie that the plans for this area are any different in HIS plan to what they were in 2012 or even before that. It is just a matter of semantics and numbers but the central issue is the same. Filling a hole with over tipped foundry sand waste to save money using money from the public purse is the nub of the issue<\/strong>, and in that regard, I very much doubt that local residents views have changed in not wanting years of that and the destruction of green open space on their doorsteps. Of the subsequent consultation which kicked off on 23rd September for six weeks<\/strong>, and see upcoming post on how to object he states…..<\/p>\n

“It is important to note that any representations received in relation to this consultation will not be dealt with by the Council. In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) <\/span><\/em>(England) Regulations 2012, they will instead be submitted by the Council to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, along with the Local Plan itself. The Secretary of State will then appoint an inspector to hold an Examination in Public, probably next Spring, at which the representations will be considered, and Mr. Carrol (sic) or any other resident, would be able to attend and participate.”<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

And so let’s finish this particular segment of this tale by reminding folks of what Sandwell planning really thought of development in this area in 2002 on the former sewage works site, away from glossy publications and political quotas. It is the real face of planning in Sandwell, and the only truth they will ever admit in private. It will always be crap for residential.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

TIP ON YOUR HOMES.\u00a0Gladstone Drive 1994. photo Robert Brook . This would go on for another 7 years!<\/p><\/div>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And so we come to the great battle of our time- a high noon show down in stopping housing on Rattlechain and the longstanding plans of foundry sand dumping conmen who fucked off the scene when they could no longer … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16164"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16164"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16936,"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16164\/revisions\/16936"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}