Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

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 The inclusion of the lagoon was withdrawn at a late stage and the site owners of the lagoon claimed that filling a hole with a mound was not technically feasible.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.

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. Not positively prepared. 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. 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), 93), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) (10). When dewatered this produces toxic gases. Not safe or possible to include this land within the allocation- no risk assessment or previous developments on such sites for this scenario. 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.

This site failed to come forward in the previous plan (2011), where the inspector Crysell did not believe it would. Two different site owners- Rhodia/Solvay owning the toxic lagoon who described the plans as not technically feasible to infill the lagoon to support residential development and discussions as “passive”(21). 13 years on from this, we only get “discussions” and no realistic intention other than kicking the scheme out until the near end of the plan in 2041- hence not effective or deliverable in the plan period. And appears once again to be reliant on money from the public purse to pay for what the polluter did not. Costs not justified or appropriate. Not justified or appropriate to remove thousands of tonnes of over tipped foundry sand off site or to infill the lagoon. Years of blight took place in the initial operation by Mintworth supposedly taking two years and in reality took eleven to create “private open space” which was abandoned and left derelict since. This caused blight to local residents with “misery” of foundry sand blowing into their homes and properties, and would again affect them in the same way. (23), (24), (25), (26), (27). SMBC SWOT analysis of area 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
More appropriate to create a nature reserve extension to Sheepwash- A SINC site. SH35 area has very rare small blue butterfly and associated kidney vetch so of important scientific interest and protection from development as a local green space. (31)The existing area in Temple Way is not a “garden city” but a concrete car park with few gardens. Further development will cause harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity. 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 Dec 2023 “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.

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. Not positively prepared. Constraints too great for sustainable development. River Tame adjacency threatens pollution to controlled waters through Sheepwash Nature Reserve as has been observed before from the Brades Brook off Addington Way.
Not relevant for housing figures with inclusion of new Dudley Road site in updated LP.
More appropriate to create a nature reserve extension to Sheepwash- A SINC site. SH35 area connecting has very rare small blue butterfly colony and associated kidney vetch so of important scientific interest and protection from development as a local green space. (31) The existing area in Temple Way is not a “garden city” but a concrete car park with few gardens. Further development will cause harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity.
NPPF Dec 2023 p185 “Habitats and biodiversity relevant, but council have failed to pre assess private land sites in ther BNG habitat banks

NPPF Dec 2023 “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.

We object to the soundness of this policy.
Paragraph 1 is unsound and not justfied or effective. The council should NOT allow planning applications based upon environmental consultancies reports which it has no proof are genuine or even truthful in their claims. Many claims have been made about sites SH35 and SH36 which are fantasy in terms of them being suitable for built development with professional bodies like the environment agency not believing acheivable aims. This is the same rehashed scheme as the 2011 SAD, and therefore some scrutiny must be applied as to why these sites failed to come forward in the intervening 13 years since, and into the distant future of this plan in the 2030's. Many consultancies carry out desk top studies which offer no insight at all into real world events or conditions and are just written for their clients to deliver development. They are effectively a lie or disingenuous at best. Planning officers in the past have stated they are not technical experts in the fields mentioned, and so how can the council justify recommened approval without expert impartial advice- particularly on sites such as Rattlechain with no previous similar sites in the UK that have been remediated?
"c. land that will potentially become contaminated as a result of the development"; REMOVE- THE COUNCIL ARE ENCOURAGING BREAKING THE LAW IN THIS REGARD AND ENDANGERING PUBLIC LAND AND THE PUBLIC.

Paragraph 2 SOUND, BUT ONLY WITH REMOVAL OF P1 C

NPPF Dec 2023 p189-191
"191. Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life; b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation."

3 UNSOUND. The council open themselves up to contaninated land free for all development with this clause. The council cannot monitor the likely impacts on the environment/watercourses and have failed to stop pollution and statutory nuisances caused by developments of tipping on the site SH35 and SH36 previously to adjoining local resident's properties. (23), (24), (25), (26), (27)

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.

WE make the following comments in regard to each numbered paragraph of this policy. Some points we consider sound and support, others need to be reworded to be sound and some deleted to be sound.

1 Not needed as no direct connection to these areas. The Fens pool site is poorly managed and its continued status should be investigated by Natural England given the angling activities and destruction which take place there.
2 SUPPORT AS SOUND BUT REWORD
“Development will not be permitted where it would alone or in combination with other plans or projects, have an adverse impact or harm on the integrity of nationally (Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature reserves) or regionally (Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) designated nature conservation sites.
N.B SMBC failed to consider existing Nature conservation policy with planning application DC_15_58580 in the officer's report stating that planning policy stated it was not a SINC! (29). An FOI request to SMBC stated that Sheepwash had already been designated some 15 years previous in 1999 as a SINC and provided a map if the whole site of designation. (30)

Therefore

INSERT LINE “PLANNING POLICY WILL KEEP UP TO DATE RECORDS OF ALL DESIGNATED SITES NATIONALLY, REGIONALLY AND WITHIN SANDWELL. “

3 SUPPORT AS SOUND.

4 UNSOUND. This paragraph contradicts the previous one making protection meaningless. Not justified as how and who decides on what is a “strategic benefit”? Reducing areas of designation in line with policy SNE2 10% net gain increase makes this policy a joke and contradiction. Not effective as new designations for protection may evolve over the next 17 years of the plan and may be too late for some species/habitats if not protected from development. REMOVE PARAGRAPH.

5 SUPPORT AS SOUND

6 SUPPORT AS SOUND

7 CONCERN ON THE WORDING OF THIS PARAGRAPH. We support evidence being updated to protect existing designated sites but are concerned about the word “amend” if this means taking away designations. We do not support ANY area having its status rescinded as this implies collusion with developers to delete designated sites they consider having “strategic benefits”. We would welcome increased protections. To make justified and sound reword
"Over the plan period, Sandwell will update evidence on designated nature conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves as necessary in conjunction with the Local Sites Partnership and Natural England and will amend existing designations in accordance with this evidence. INSERT “NO SITE ALREADY DESIGNATED WILL BE LOST OR DELETED”. Consequently, sites may receive new, or increased, protection over the Plan period."
Paragraph 4.2 page 83 still refers to “the black country” and not Sandwell, and this should be amended to comment on the nature conservation in our borough, including designating more local nature reserves and extending existing ones to improve the poor record mentioned in further paragraphs.

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.

WE make the following comments in regard to each numbered paragraph of this policy. Some points we consider sound and support, others need to be reworded to be sound and some deleted to be sound.

1 Not needed as no direct connection to these areas. The Fens pool site is poorly managed and its continued status should be investigated by Natural England given the angling activities and destruction which take place there.
2 SUPPORT AS SOUND BUT REWORD
“Development will not be permitted where it would alone or in combination with other plans or projects, have an adverse impact or harm on the integrity of nationally (Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature reserves) or regionally (Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) designated nature conservation sites.
N.B SMBC failed to consider existing Nature conservation policy with planning application DC_15_58580 in the officer's report stating that planning policy stated it was not a SINC! (29). An FOI request to SMBC stated that Sheepwash had already been designated some 15 years previous in 1999 as a SINC and provided a map if the whole site of designation. (30)

Therefore

INSERT LINE “PLANNING POLICY WILL KEEP UP TO DATE RECORDS OF ALL DESIGNATED SITES NATIONALLY, REGIONALLY AND WITHIN SANDWELL. “

3 SUPPORT AS SOUND.

4 UNSOUND. This paragraph contradicts the previous one making protection meaningless. Not justified as how and who decides on what is a “strategic benefit”? Reducing areas of designation in line with policy SNE2 10% net gain increase makes this policy a joke and contradiction. Not effective as new designations for protection may evolve over the next 17 years of the plan and may be too late for some species/habitats if not protected from development. REMOVE PARAGRAPH.

5 SUPPORT AS SOUND

6 SUPPORT AS SOUND

7 CONCERN ON THE WORDING OF THIS PARAGRAPH. We support evidence being updated to protect existing designated sites but are concerned about the word “amend” if this means taking away designations. We do not support ANY area having its status rescinded as this implies collusion with developers to delete designated sites they consider having “strategic benefits”. We would welcome increased protections. To make justified and sound reword
"Over the plan period, Sandwell will update evidence on designated nature conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves as necessary in conjunction with the Local Sites Partnership and Natural England and will amend existing designations in accordance with this evidence. INSERT “NO SITE ALREADY DESIGNATED WILL BE LOST OR DELETED”. Consequently, sites may receive new, or increased, protection over the Plan period."
Paragraph 4.2 page 83 still refers to “the black country” and not Sandwell, and this should be amended to comment on the nature conservation in our borough, including designating more local nature reserves and extending existing ones to improve the poor record mentioned in further paragraphs.

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.

WE make the following comments in regard to each numbered paragraph of this policy. Some points we consider sound and support, others need to be reworded to be sound and some deleted to be sound.

1 Not needed as no direct connection to these areas. The Fens pool site is poorly managed and its continued status should be investigated by Natural England given the angling activities and destruction which take place there.
2 SUPPORT AS SOUND BUT REWORD
“Development will not be permitted where it would alone or in combination with other plans or projects, have an adverse impact or harm on the integrity of nationally (Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature reserves) or regionally (Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) designated nature conservation sites.
N.B SMBC failed to consider existing Nature conservation policy with planning application DC_15_58580 in the officer's report stating that planning policy stated it was not a SINC! (29). An FOI request to SMBC stated that Sheepwash had already been designated some 15 years previous in 1999 as a SINC and provided a map if the whole site of designation. (30)

Therefore

INSERT LINE “PLANNING POLICY WILL KEEP UP TO DATE RECORDS OF ALL DESIGNATED SITES NATIONALLY, REGIONALLY AND WITHIN SANDWELL. “

3 SUPPORT AS SOUND.

4 UNSOUND. This paragraph contradicts the previous one making protection meaningless. Not justified as how and who decides on what is a “strategic benefit”? Reducing areas of designation in line with policy SNE2 10% net gain increase makes this policy a joke and contradiction. Not effective as new designations for protection may evolve over the next 17 years of the plan and may be too late for some species/habitats if not protected from development. REMOVE PARAGRAPH.

5 SUPPORT AS SOUND

6 SUPPORT AS SOUND

7 CONCERN ON THE WORDING OF THIS PARAGRAPH. We support evidence being updated to protect existing designated sites but are concerned about the word “amend” if this means taking away designations. We do not support ANY area having its status rescinded as this implies collusion with developers to delete designated sites they consider having “strategic benefits”. We would welcome increased protections. To make justified and sound reword
"Over the plan period, Sandwell will update evidence on designated nature conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves as necessary in conjunction with the Local Sites Partnership and Natural England and will amend existing designations in accordance with this evidence. INSERT “NO SITE ALREADY DESIGNATED WILL BE LOST OR DELETED”. Consequently, sites may receive new, or increased, protection over the Plan period."
Paragraph 4.2 page 83 still refers to “the black country” and not Sandwell, and this should be amended to comment on the nature conservation in our borough, including designating more local nature reserves and extending existing ones to improve the poor record mentioned in further paragraphs.

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.

WE make the following comments in regard to each numbered paragraph of this policy. Some points we consider sound and support, others need to be reworded to be sound and some deleted to be sound.

1 Not needed as no direct connection to these areas. The Fens pool site is poorly managed and its continued status should be investigated by Natural England given the angling activities and destruction which take place there.
2 SUPPORT AS SOUND BUT REWORD
“Development will not be permitted where it would alone or in combination with other plans or projects, have an adverse impact or harm on the integrity of nationally (Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature reserves) or regionally (Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) designated nature conservation sites.
N.B SMBC failed to consider existing Nature conservation policy with planning application DC_15_58580 in the officer's report stating that planning policy stated it was not a SINC! (29). An FOI request to SMBC stated that Sheepwash had already been designated some 15 years previous in 1999 as a SINC and provided a map if the whole site of designation. (30)

Therefore

INSERT LINE “PLANNING POLICY WILL KEEP UP TO DATE RECORDS OF ALL DESIGNATED SITES NATIONALLY, REGIONALLY AND WITHIN SANDWELL. “

3 SUPPORT AS SOUND.

4 UNSOUND. This paragraph contradicts the previous one making protection meaningless. Not justified as how and who decides on what is a “strategic benefit”? Reducing areas of designation in line with policy SNE2 10% net gain increase makes this policy a joke and contradiction. Not effective as new designations for protection may evolve over the next 17 years of the plan and may be too late for some species/habitats if not protected from development. REMOVE PARAGRAPH.

5 SUPPORT AS SOUND

6 SUPPORT AS SOUND

7 CONCERN ON THE WORDING OF THIS PARAGRAPH. We support evidence being updated to protect existing designated sites but are concerned about the word “amend” if this means taking away designations. We do not support ANY area having its status rescinded as this implies collusion with developers to delete designated sites they consider having “strategic benefits”. We would welcome increased protections. To make justified and sound reword
"Over the plan period, Sandwell will update evidence on designated nature conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves as necessary in conjunction with the Local Sites Partnership and Natural England and will amend existing designations in accordance with this evidence. INSERT “NO SITE ALREADY DESIGNATED WILL BE LOST OR DELETED”. Consequently, sites may receive new, or increased, protection over the Plan period."
Paragraph 4.2 page 83 still refers to “the black country” and not Sandwell, and this should be amended to comment on the nature conservation in our borough, including designating more local nature reserves and extending existing ones to improve the poor record mentioned in further paragraphs.