Remove the proposal to develop the land referred to as 'Rattlechain' green space (what3words: stay.ticket.cooks). There are plenty of brownfield sites to develop within Sandwell instead.

In relation to '3.47 Residential development is anticipated at Rattlechain', there are a number of concerns specific to this site and the impact of any development work on local nature and local residents of the Temple Way estate. These concerns include: disturbance of a hazardous landfill site with potential health impact on local residents and wildlife, clearing of a natural wildlife habitat, groundworks and building works vehicles accessing the site adding additional air pollution and noise to the area, work on the site would likely go on for years and likely cost much more than anticipated.

N.B As part of this submission and including objections of soundness for SH35 and SH36, please find enclosed a petition of those named supporting these comments which should be used as a barometer of public opposition to residential development in this location. Please also refer to attached FOS evidence PDF which cites relevant material in numbered parentheses.
Remove paragraph and withdraw site allocation, which we will comment on in separate forms. This site is in two separate land ownerships and includes a still hazardous rattlechain waste lagoon containing tens of tonnes of white phosphorus, a banned rat poison that has provenly caused systemic exposure and deaths of many wildfowl. (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16). Waste from millions of filled WW2 weapons were deposited there by Albright and Wilson since 1942 and a site licence operated from 1978. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) (10).
No safeguards were in place by the EA or Sandwell council to stop harm to receptors and the "problem" Sandwell council speaks of is that we exposed the failure of regulation in what was being dumped and harming receptors over decades. This site remains unsafe and when dewatered, P4 catches fire when exposed to air- thus risking harm under P2A of the EPA.(16), (17)

The adjacent site contains over tipped foundry sand under the auspices of failed planning applications by Mintworth, many in the control of Sandwell Council and more site licences that have left it in the abandoned state that it is in. Note this site was also proposed in the 2011 adopted SAD under examination and has totally failed to get any further despite assurances from the agents of the then owners. The inclusion of the lagoon was withdrawn at a late stage and the site owners of the lagoon claimed that filling a hole with a mound was not technically feasible. (21)NB this was also the findings of a 1990 report by Cremer and Warner which then estimated £3.5 M to remove the waste from the non lagoon side off site. Many thousands of tonnes of foundry sand were then tipped after this date for another 11 years, in an operation which was supposedly only going to take two! The cost today therefore will be tens of millions to remove this waste off site, and how long will this take- well beyond the life of the plan we would consider. Many records are on file known to SMBC planners about the "misery that this directionless operation to “reclaim” land as private open space” caused residents on the Temple Way Estate, blackening their homes with foundry sand. (23), (24), (25), (26), (27).
SMBC in their SWOT analysis of the site in 2017 DPSPD stated as threats “CONTAMINATED LAND REMEDIATION COSTS”, “INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT”https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dudley_port_supplementary_planni/response/986421/attach/2/attachment.pdf

and we would agree that this site should not be remediated by the tax payer in the same way that previous Mintworth tipping sites The Coneygree site, (now under the same ownership as the non lagoon side), and Shidas Lane in Oldbury, also used as tips and then abandoned in our view for a land banking opportunity when a public funding opportunity arises. (22), (28). The polluter has not paid to remediate this site. How many more years and plans should this nonsense continue into? The reliability of previous consultant reports (Sladen) and any future ones require greater scrutiny, are scarcely believable and it is incredible that the council in this plan carry this site forward yet again. The site is therefore unrealsitic in delievring homes and the plan is not effective with the inclusion of this paragragh. A former principle planning officer at SMBC described the development of the former sewage works- a previous part of the tipping operations as "a cr£p site for residential"- an email showing perhaps what planners in the council really believe to be the case. (19) Residents living next to the lagoon were not given information about the site and lost money trying to re sell (20).

Better use of the site would be to extend the area of Sheepwash as a SINC, with rare species and plants identified on the site. (31) NPPF DEC 2023 P 185 “Habitats and biodiversity relevant, but council have failed to pre assess private land sites in their BNG habitat banks.

NPPF DEC2023 Ground conditions and pollution P189, 190,191 also relevant to the unsound inclusion of this site.

N.B As part of this submission and including objections of soundness for SH35 and SH36, please find enclosed a petition of those named supporting these comments which should be used as a barometer of public opposition to residential development in this location. Please also refer to attached FOS evidence PDF which cites relevant material in numbered parentheses.

REMOVE ALLOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. Lagoon site not compatible with development. Constraints too great for sustainable development. Failure over decades for this site to be suitable for this purpose and the rattlechain lagoon is still a permitted hazardous waste site containing tens of tonnes of highly toxic white phosphorus. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) (10). When dewatered this produces toxic gases. 16), (17). Not safe or possible to include this land within the allocation- no risk assessment or previous developments on such sites for this scenario.
Permit has not been surrendered and can only be by Rhodia/Solvay when the Environment Agency agrees to this after a completion certificate.
It is not for the owners of the adjacent site nor their neighbours, nor SMBC to believe they are entitled to judge this legal matter , when/if this may even happen and in the time of the Sandwell plan. Similarly SMBC should be mindful of Part 2 a of the EPA and liabilities regards land that has no risk assessment for the scenarios likely from dewatering the lagoon and toxic gases. The EA will not agree to the inclusion of the lagoon in conjunction with a different development on the adjacent site given the time bomb that activity on one site may impact on another. If they do, they are not a fit body to exist.

Similar site in US produced toxic phosphine gas associated with degradation of white phosphorus which was over 2km away from nearest occupancy, and not as here just metres from existing or proposed homes. (16), (17). Council ,HSE and Environment Agency cannot sign this off knowing what scenario would unfold- Risk of significant harm existing and future occupiers being compromised.
NPPF Dec 2023 “Ground conditions and pollution P189, 190,191 also relevant to the unsound inclusion of this site.

I support the intention of paragraph 3.49 to improve links between the canals and wider attractions such as the Dudley Canal Trust, Black Country Museum and Dudley Zoo, and Tipton Owen Street. Centre: see representation ID1422 for a suggested improvement to links.

Paragraph 3.45 describes the decline in retail provision in Tipton(Owen Street) centre and the Council's current regeneration efforts. These efforts amount to the demolition of shops with flats above and replacement with very high density social residential units Whilst this contributes to housing supply in a location close to the railway station, it is at the cost of displacing several businesses which have either ceased trading or relocated elsewhere; fortunately the Post Office has secured premises within the remaining shopping precinct. Furthermore the Council has moved the library away from Owen Street. These changes will have reduced the already modest footfall and the continued presence of the one major retailer, Poundland, must be in doubt. A masterplan is needed to exploit the advantages of the town's twin canal frontages, proximity to major attractions in Dudley and railway station.