Sustainability Appraisal of the Sandwell Local Plan 2024-2041
Search representations
Results for Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve search
New searchObject
Sustainability Appraisal of the Sandwell Local Plan 2024-2041
Appendix H: Reasons for Selection and Rejection of Reasonable Alternative Sites
Representation ID: 1420
Received: 07/11/2024
Respondent: Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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 ALLOCATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE FOR SH35 AND SH36. 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), (20, (3), 94), (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), (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. (31The 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 ther BNG habitat banks
NPPF Dec 2023 “Ground conditions and pollution P189, 190,191 also relevant to the unsound inclusion of this site.
SH35 Council claims "It is considered that subject to the resolution of constraints of ground
contamination, environmental concerns, and Policy issues the development for residential purposes would be suitable. " On whose assessment have they based this statement? SH36 Council states "Although there are issues with the ground conditions and historic industrial uses to overcome, the site is considered suitable for residential redevelopment. There is the potential for development with the adjoining larger site, which would provide an increased capacity and bring disused land back into beneficial use." On whose assessment have they based this statement?
The council cannot rely on the discredited Sladen opinion put forward by RPS for Mintworth and the fictitious "Denver Ltd" at the SAD hearing in 2011. If so perhaps they could explain why it has failed to come forward 13 years later, and we are now expected to base this allocation on the same discredited nonsense well into the life of the next plan where it will no doubt be carried forward after that. Scrutiny and transparency finally required.
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 ALLOCATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE FOR SH35 AND SH36. 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), (20, (3), 94), (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), (27). SMBC SWOT analysis of area 2017 DPSPD stated as threats “CONTAMINATED LAND REMEDIATION COSTS”, “INAPPROPRIATE DEVEVELOPMENT
”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. (31The 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 ther BNG habitat banks
NPPF Dec 2023 “Ground conditions and pollution P189, 190,191 also relevant to the unsound inclusion of this site.
SH35 Council claims "It is considered that subject to the resolution of constraints of ground
contamination, environmental concerns, and Policy issues the development for
residential purposes would be suitable. " On whose assessment have they based this statement? SH36 Council states "Although there are issues with the ground conditions and historic industrial uses to overcome, the site is considered suitable for residential redevelopment. There
is the potential for development with the adjoining larger site, which would provide an increased capacity and bring disused land back into beneficial use." On whose assessment have they based this statement?
The council cannot rely on the discredited Sladen opinion put forward by RPS for Mintworth and the fictitious "Denver Ltd" at the SAD hearing in 2011. If so perhaps they could explain why it has failed to come forward 13 years later, and we are now expected to base this allocation on the same discredited nonsense well into the life of the next plan where it will no doubt be carried forward after that. Scrutiny and transparency finally required.
