In the last post we looked at how Sandwell council have been failing to work or communicate with West Midlands Police on asb matters, despite their “safer six” campaign claiming otherwise.
This post looks at a response to Councillor Mark Webb who had a two hour ride around sheepwash with me to look at various issues and familiarise himself with the site. He raised the issues in the correct way using the councillor portal, but unfortunately, the response from parks is one which we have become accustomed. No stated officer name, rebuttal bordering on bullshit, and no real answers to questions outstanding in some cases for years. Below are the statements made in the response and our opinion of the situation in blue.
“Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the concerns raised by your constituent about Sheepwash Nature Reserve.
Please find below a response to each of the points raised:
- Main Gates – We had originally planned to undertake a full repair of the main entrance gates. However, following further assessment, the extent of the damage and the scale of the required works exceeded the budget previously secured for the project. Please be assured that this remains a priority for us. We are currently developing an alternative scheme which we hope will provide a practical and long-term solution.
It is important to note that this damage was caused by West Midlands Fire Service who cut through the gates in August 2024 after an arson attack, caused by Sandwell council mowing the grass and leaving piles of it as tinder dry material. We have raised this concern every year, and still it falls on deaf ears. The council claim that they have given WMFS keys, and yet we have again already seen them cut through another weld to gain entry to put out a fire- clearly no communication and no “partnership”.
- Display Boards and Signage – It is our intention to upgrade signage throughout the nature reserve, including display boards, subject to the availability of funding.
What we actually requested was a clean up of the current boards, and also the main entrance that some prat smeared to try to clean up a piece of graffitti. Already we get the caveat of “availability of funding” That means no commitment, just a possibility.
- Paths and Vegetation Management – Our Countryside Rangers, supported by the Grounds Maintenance Team, periodically undertake vegetation clearance and path management works across the site. This work is often scheduled during the winter months; however, our Rangers will visit the site and undertake any necessary maintenance where required.
There are two countryside rangers, who are usually never on the same shift pattern.
- Access Gates – Where feasible, the Council seeks to provide gates and access points that are compliant with accessibility standards. However, this must be balanced against site constraints, operational requirements, the wider accessible footpath network, and other practical considerations. We are currently exploring funding opportunities with partner organisations to improve a number of access points and hope this will help address some of the issues raised. We also recognise that there can be differing priorities regarding gate management and access arrangements and will continue to work with all parties to identify a suitable and balanced solution.
Again “exploring funding”- no promise, and this is just basically a load of waffle. The issue is the radar gates have been damaged by the scum riding off road bikes who are thieves. They have already shown how they fail to communicate with the so called “partner organisations”.
- Tunnels – Flooding within the tunnels has been an ongoing issue for a number of years. Whilst a comprehensive solution involving improved drainage, lighting and resurfacing would be desirable, the costs associated with such works are considerable. In the meantime, we will continue to maintain the existing drainage infrastructure and remove blockages where identified. We have recorded the request for future improvements; however, it should be noted that we receive relatively few complaints regarding access through this area and any future investment will need to be considered alongside other priorities.
It has been ongoing because sandwell parks officers have failed to ever do anything about the issue in terms of John’s Lane. In March 2024 we had a meeting with John Satchwell and Amy Robinson where this issue was raised again as it had been with other walkabouts with the three now ex councillors for Great Bridge. There was no follow up or response from either of them. The issue was raised again at the so called “market style event” earlier this year. Again no response from either of them. They now use the tool of “few complaints” as though this is the issue when in fact they have failed to maintain what are two rights of way. Again this is waffle.
- Trees – We note the concerns raised regarding tree management. Given limited resources, tree maintenance is prioritised towards those presenting the greatest risk to public safety. Fallen trees within the nature reserve can often provide significant ecological and biodiversity benefits and, where they do not obstruct access or present a safety risk, we would generally seek to retain them on site. As part of our wider tree management programme, our aim is to inspect trees on a three-to-five-year cycle, and we will look to undertake a survey at Sheepwash as soon as practicably possible.
The number of dead trees at the site is shocking, and shows how there has been no tree management for probably 2 decades now, since no site worker was on here full time. The survey they mention is in contravention of their tree policy which they have failed to address in this response.
- Fieldhouse Building – At present, we do not hold any additional information regarding the Fieldhouse Building. Should further details become available, we will be happy to share them.
This relates to the future of this connected site, and also we would remind folks of how SMBC planning officers failed to even recognise Sheepwash as a nature reserve when a planning application for housing on this site was put forward. This never materialised and we await to see what will happen next.
- Fly-Tipping – All fly-tipping incidents should be reported via the MySandwell portal to ensure they are logged and actioned appropriately. We would also like to recognise and thank the volunteers who have undertaken litter clearance activities within the reserve. Their efforts and commitment are greatly appreciated.
The my sandwell portal is a shirk from home opportunity for SMBC staff to hide behind. It is unfit for purpose, and if reporting issues in Tame Road for example, it submits the location as Tame Bridge Parkway. The reference to the major clear up undertaken by volunteers refers to the rubbish which SMBC parks management and Serco failed to clear despite taking reference points on a walkabout.
- Flower Meadows – We are happy to explore opportunities for creating or enhancing flower meadow areas within the reserve. We are currently working with partners to assess feasibility and identify associated costs, with the intention of developing proposals in the near future.
Just waffle bullshit.
- Events and Activities – Many events held across Sandwell form part of the Council’s wider civic and events programme or are delivered by community organisations, volunteers or commercial operators. We would be pleased to work with the Friends Group should they wish to organise events or activities at Sheepwash Nature Reserve. We can also provide support in identifying potential funding opportunities through our Volunteer Development Officer.
- Bins and Litter Management – We are currently investigating opportunities to upgrade the litter bins located at the main entrances to the site by increasing their capacity. We are also looking at installing additional signage to encourage responsible waste disposal and reduce littering across the reserve.
Fair enough but the question of who empties them remains.
I trust the above provides a helpful update on the matters raised. We remain committed to maintaining and improving Sheepwash Nature Reserve and value the ongoing support and feedback provided by local residents and community groups.”
It does not. This is not an update at all, just a holding response without much clarity other than vague pointing into the distance and reliant on “potential” funding from an unidentified source. We would like to make a recommendation- get rid of middle managers on 50k a year who outnumber staff on the front line. At present those in charge of this site have no intention of doing anything positive for sheepwash. That is clear to see from the deliberate ghosting, lack of credible response when you finally get any reply which is not any form of “partnership” at all.