BACKGROUND

The Friends of Sheepwash were one of a number of groups in Sandwell who were basically forced to sign up to an agreement with the council known as “The partnership agreement.”

We were told, and in writing that the council would hold quarterly meetings where the officers in parks would be available to answer questions and give briefings on matters including applying for funding.

“4. Working with Friends Groups a) Sandwell Council will provide senior officers for a quarterly meeting with all recognised Friends Groups (those with a signed Partnership Agreement), split by North and South of Sandwell. b) The Quarterly meeting with friends will have an agenda to include the following regular items: i. Best Practice Sharing and Progress (Friends Groups Updates) ii. Update on Green Spaces Strategy progress (Council Updates) iii. Fundraising Update for Friends Groups and information sharing on grants and funding opportunities available. iv. Key Issues for Friends Groups (to be raised in advance of the meeting). v. Guest speakers to support the training and development of Friends Groups.”

The last meeting took place in March 2024 after being hastily cancelled and then re-arranged and since that time we have received no minutes of that meeting or subsequent invites to any further meetings.

We had a meeting with park officers- John Satchwell and Amy Robinson who have also failed to give us any updates on a meeting we had with them in April. We have emailed Ben Percival who took over from Matthew Huggins on an interim basis- we were also never told officially that he actually had left, and yet he has failed to even respond to those emails which is a complete lack of professional courtesy. Councillor Gill tells us that he had spoken to Ben Percival about this, and yet weeks on, still nothing from this interim officer.

Further more, we are wondering what exactly parks officers have been doing for the last 10 months, and do not feel they have done anything with our site, have failed to communicate any matters and have failed to respond to emails.

We can evidence all of the above and this matter reflects very badly on the council and its failure to work with friends groups or support them.

We will no longer honour the agreement we signed up to and not be bound by it due to the council breaking the agreement. Following a complaint to the council, this was received, and we will comment as appropriate in blue.

We have responded to your case with reference number CU668692148.

We knowledge and apologise that there hasn’t been a quarterly meeting held since March earlier this year.

Following Mr Huggins departure, we entered into a period of change while our service was reassigned under an alternative Assistant Director. A number of additional complications lead us to focus attention on other areas of our service.

So what were these “additional complications” and what were the “other areas of our service” as it appears to suggest a very amateur set up of what should be a professional organisation, which as we know is far from that. It is far from that as volunteers appear to be required to pick up litter and do other things that are someone’s actual job. Where in the private sector do companies advertise for people to do litter picks? Do Royal Mail ask the public to do a few streets for their postman? Do train companies ask, “can you wave a flag for us or blow a whistle on a platform because our staff are on strike again? Why is SMBC and Serco relying on the third sector to do the jobs it is paying employees to do? 

The problem with this response is that it appears to blame the guy who has left, just as the guy who left blamed the guy who left before him. With that in mind, we would point out that it is Sandwell Labour Council who hire and can fire staff, and it is on their watch when things go tits up, as they appear to have here. 

During this time we have been undertaking a review of some of the services that we offer whilst considering whether our current processes were the most appropriate.  We need to ensure that we are consistent with our approach to friend’s groups to guarantee equality and transparency.

So again, a year of wasted initiatives which it now admits were a waste of time, and yet we get NO TRANSPARENCY from this vaguely worded excuse. 

We fully intend to continue working in close partnership with our existing friend’s group but acknowledge that the current agreement needs to be re-visited.

Wow! So why would any group sign up again to any agreement when the council has shown its failure to honour that agreement which it set up? 

We propose to carry out a consultation with our friend’s groups in the New Year to establish the best approach for our continued work together, allowing us to continue to focus on our priorities whilst incorporating the support for the valuable contributions made by our volunteers.

We as a team have been incredibly busy delivering £4 Million worth of improvements to our Green Spaces this year, which will continue into 2025.

Bullshit. Too busy to even answer relevant emails , or still skiving working from home for no valid reason because your pathetic unions demand it in the public sector? 

We appreciate that it has been frustrating during this transition, however we seek to resolve these outstanding issues and look forward to a more positive working relationship in the new year.

Well, all to be said on that is, it would appear to be better if the interim hiring of officers ceased and appointment of new ones from a fresh canvas took place. How can someone who cannot even be bothered to answer emails and be reminded by a councillor and still not respond after that be credible in the job? 

With just two countryside rangers managing nine local nature reserves in Sandwell, you can see how highly this local authority values its designated sites. You can also see that in planning policy terms, and planning officer terms, they have also demonstrated that they do not even know where these areas are located or following relevant policy of material planning considerations when delegating reports in that regard.

The Sandwell Local Plan (SLP) is a manifesto for house building and offers nothing for wildlife or its remaining fragmented habitat. Unfortunately it mirrors a national policy made by corrupt political scum of all main parties who have made it this way by classifying wildlife in terms of “units” and “credits” which are transferable to tick a box. We are therefore introduced to the terms “biodiversity net gain”, “biodiversity credits” and “nature recovery strategy maps” which are meaningless theoretical bollocks allowing desk jockeys for environmental consultancies (planning enablers), with not much time on their hands to spend outdoors, but plenty of time to drink their lattes in a cosy warm office preparing  shite like this.

Two terms are defined and are important to this post,  but they are largely theoretical and wordy . I have underlined the statement below which is crucial.

Biodiversity net gain definition

“An approach to development and land management that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand. The objective requires the biodiversity value attributable to a development to exceed pre-development biodiversity value by at least 10%. Post-development biodiversity value may comprise onsite habitat, offsite biodiversity gain and biodiversity credits.”

Nature Recovery Network definition

“An expanding, increasingly connected, network of wildlife-rich habitats supporting species recovery, alongside wider benefits such as carbon capture, water quality improvements, natural flood risk management and recreation. It includes the existing network of protected sites and other wildlife rich habitats as well as and landscape or catchment scale recovery areas where there is co ordinated action for species and habitats.”

The SNE2 policy that the council have produced in the SLP is shown below and explains their rationale.

I put in an FOI to Sandwell council regards the nonsense they had spouted about certain sites they had considered in a cabinet report prior to the publication of the current plan out for consultation. I wanted to know which consultancy had drawn up the garbage as well as the methodology used to produce the eight listed sites.

The council replied and gave me a link to the study below conducted by an entity called “Lepus consulting” who also are behind the sustainability appraisal for the SLP.

Sandwell_Biodiversity_Net_Gain__BNG__Strategy__September_2023_ (2)

So let us interrogate this document and see it for what it is, which is a very weak report full of theory, very little practical surveying and omissions of certain sites which do not make sense.

“Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) has commissioned Lepus Consulting to undertake a study to identify and undertake an assessment of habitats within council-owned sites in Sandwell to establish their suitability for use as potential habitat banks for the delivery of BNG.”

The first thing to point out is that SMBC ignore privately owned sites- the ones that are most likely to be built upon and which are also the most likely to be destroy wildlife habitat that has naturally re-wilded, like the ones off Rattechain SH35 and SH36.

“In the State of the Nature Report in 2019 headline data indicated that the abundance and distribution of the UK’s biodiversity has, on average, declined since 1970, with a 13% decline in average species abundance3 . This is attributable to a number of pressures including intensive farming, climate change and urbanisation which have led to pollution, habitat loss and degradation.”

3 State-of-Nature-2019-UK-full-report.pdf

I do not argue with their opening statements, but the threat of “urbanisation” is exactly what the SLP is proposing in real terms.

We learn that Sandwell has nine nature reserves, including Sheepwash which is also a SINC but looking at a map of these sites on page 32 of the PDF  you can see how grossly disproportionate nature reserves are in Sandwell with only one in Tipton and none at all in Wednesbury, Smethwick or Oldbury- this makes up four of Sandwell’s six towns!

The meat on the bones of this pathetic report is revealed at 6.2 onwards.

• They only visited sites once due to “time constraints” Why is time a factor in this report, as it seems that this was done by the council on the hoof to attempt a hurried justification of coming up with random sites they could use.
• They visited in the summer months when nature is probably at its most secretive with increased footfall of people. Different species are obviously present at different times of year, and passage migrant species do not appear to have even come into the equation of “biodiversity”.
• They do not appear to have used any Eco record reports, or local information of groups like sandnats, or certainly Friends of Sheepwash to inform their observations or knowledge of sites. They undertook no “bio-blitz” of any site.
• They could not even map some areas

• They do not even attempt to investigate water habitats at all, again due to “time constraints”.
• “Further assessments” needed- because theirs was not good enough.

• The worst part about this whole “strategy” is the failure to even look at privately owned sites. These are the ones of course like SH35 and SH36 on the doorstep of Sheepwash and in the nature recovery area map that the council expect will be boosted by a 10% increase in on site biodiversity. Has it not occurred to these idiots that they do not have any knowledge of what nature exists on these sites but they expect developers will be honest about what is there so that their paid liars of environmental consultants will produce a report claiming that they can boost BNG by 10% by creating a token hedge or swale (dirty surface water ditch ) like the one on the picture below?

• The cracker can best be described a “a pikey horse and car dumping shithole”. There is no point boosting biodiversity in such a place as the frequent weed dumping disposal in buckets is the only thing growing there,  and they have only created this for political reasons due to Princes End ward being a swing seat area.
• The Menzies open space contains the contaminated Millpool or Milky- contaminated by Bituminous waste that was not prevented from being further polluted ironically when the site was turned into housing! The remediation fraud of the developers were not protected by any body including the EA and the useless officers at Sandwell council, harming wildlife and causing significant pollution to an already contaminated water body. The cover up by all concerned was massive and a disgrace. 
• I set the Millpool story out in four parts which offer definitive proof of why post reclamation of industrial sites and brownfield land destroys nature and habitat.

Millpool West Bromwich#1 The Major Bitumen dumping ground of W H Keys | What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

Millpool West Bromwich#2 The Meltdown of W H Keys | What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

Millpool West Bromwich#3 MARred by historic pollution and fake “clean up” – Part 1 | What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

Millpool West Bromwich#4 MARred by historic pollution and fake “clean up” – Part 2 | What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

• Of course Lepus know nothing of this as they do not have time, but do not even look at improving the water habitat at the pool either!

• There has to be concern that this very point has already surfaced with the planning application at the Coneygree site in Tipton- owned by the same entity who now proposes sites SH35 and SH36 and previously by the conmen foundry sand dumpers who abandoned it and left both sites in the state they are in and future dependent on money from the public purse.

‘Wildlife buffer zone’ to be removed to make way for industrial warehouse in Tipton | Express & Star

The council had no policy when this farce unfolded due to national policy failure, but they do not appear to recognise they will have no basis of knowledge as to the real nature value of these private sites.

As it is, we are aware that the former Duport’s Tip area next to Rattlechain contains a rare butterfly- the small blue, (Cupido minimus), Britain’s smallest butterfly as well as the associated kidney vetch which its caterpillars eat. It is protected in the UK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 and a priority species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. I had a site walkover with naturalist Darrell Harrison who found the butterfly and several unusual plants on the site of local rarity.

Of course such sites already connected to Sheepwash and the wildlife corridor of the canal could be used as habitat banks, but if only someone would tell Sandwell council that instead of wanting to shove more trees into dog shit parks like Tividale to tick a box.

It is also interesting that just this week the leader of Sandwell council has proposed an animal welfare taskforce policy. I have concerns that this will be nothing more than a pontificating talking shop like the unsound policy SNE2 above, but what is interesting is one of the claims in the new vision Notice of Motion – 29 October 2024. 

Animal Welfare

“Council notes that:

Protecting wildlife and natural habitats is crucial for maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance.”

Words are cheap eh when your planning policy overrides it! 

The Sandwell Plan and the ludicrous inclusion of two areas including Rattlechain lagoon for 500 plus houses impact three if not four wards in the borough, Great Bridge, Oldbury, Tividale and Tipton Green. With boundary changes proposed for 2026, it may be the case that the lagoon ends up in Tividale ward.

I have written to the nine councillors in the first three wards, and also Richard Jeffcoat independent councillor in Tipton Green. You can read this submission below. Relevant links are included within the text for receipts and clarification.

sandwell plan councillor letter

Alternatively, if you live in these these wards and are aggrieved at the loss of green space this will entail, then please do get in touch with the councillors via email addresses below before the close of The Sandwell Plan consultation on 4TH NOVEMBER 2024. 

GREAT BRIDGE WARD

william_gill@sandwell.gov.uk

SahdaishKaur_Pall@sandwell.gov.uk

 soyfur_rahman@sandwell.gov.uk

OLDBURY WARD

suzanne_hartwell@sandwell.gov.uk

rizwan_jalil@sandwell.gov.uk

nagi_dayasingh@sandwell.gov.uk

TIVIDALE WARD

maria_crompton@sandwell.gov.uk

amrita_dunn@sandwell.gov.uk

Wakas_Younis@sandwell.gov.uk

TIPTON GREEN WARD. 

Richard_Jeffcoat@sandwell.gov.uk

All of these councillors are likely at present to be up for election in 2026 and well before the likely hood of any plans for the destruction of this area. Please respectfully make your views and objections known.

Some 27 years ago, a group concerned with protecting the flora and fauna of Sheepwash was set up by a group of volunteers. Over that course of time people have come and gone, particularly in Sandwell Council, but one thing has remained constant in that this organisation has always prioritised The Sandwell Valley ahead of the poorer Tipton cousin in terms of management and upkeep. You can see this visually and it is irrefutable given the number of staff that work in West Bromwich compared to the token visits that now take place in Great Bridge.

For many years certain councillors in the Great bridge ward, with the exception of Fred Perry did absolutely nothing to promote or campaign for this to improve, and so the rot continued with the only employee on site eventually being axed due to long term ill health. No replacement was ever put in place, and you cannot keep blaming “the cuts” as a political excuse, because it is rubbish. It is rubbish because SMBC has instead pumped tax payers money into using the Valley as an events umbrella for all types of political, music and sporting spectacles whilst charging for parking. It has failed to ever manage angling, anti social behaviour and failed to enact bye laws necessary to protect the nature reserve sites.

Indeed it is clear to see where they have invested their money in Green flag formal parks, with many smaller sites never getting anything at all. Sheepwash has made do for many years with patchwork maintenance, mainly putting plasters over the criminal damage caused by local scum who set out to destroy anything that cannot be tied down. They are a minority, and yet are never dealt with with the full force of the law available.

In terms of what a “friends of” group is, we were one of the first in the borough and have always been critical of Sandwell council and never shilled on their behalf, in fact council officers will tell you that. We are not paid any money from Sandwell Council, do not control their budgets, and nor do we decide what they spend their money on. We would like to make this clear as certain individuals have made up lies that we do on social media, and we are not going to stand for that. Any individual purporting such will be excluded from our facebook page and permanently blocked, as is our right. We may feed wildlife on the site, but we are not going to feed the trolls.

POOR GOVERNANCE

We would also like to make it clear that we are constantly on the back of Sandwell Council about the poor maintenance of the site, emailing local councillors and officers and reporting issues via the quite useless “my Sandwell” portal. This takes volunteer time, and some of us have jobs to do as well, as carers, as well as other volunteer work outside of the specific area. If you criticise us without any knowledge or comprehension of what goes on and is not constantly self promoted via social media, well basically, the second word is “off”.

In the last week pictures of five individuals lighting fires have been sent to the council and the police by us, and it is up to them what action they take. It would be helpful of course if the council did not leave piles of freshly cut grass behind and turned it into bales as they used to. It is unclear as to why the council appear to not have a bale machine anymore or why they have not purchased one as a useful piece of frontline infrastructure.

mindless scum

One issue constantly being raised is the blocked John’s Lane tunnel- head of highways Robin Weare not having the courtesy to ever reply despite us being asked to contact him by a planning policy officer at the council, and nor it seems does he respond to councillors that we have made aware of this situation many times. That is, they have also failed to take this matter up to resolution and we would ask why?

In terms of Sandwell Council, they have over the last two years attempted to make groups sign up to an agreement that it itself has failed to uphold, treating volunteers with total contempt, childish diktats and failed communication from officers it claims are “busy”, This joke is underlined by the fact that there are just two countryside rangers employed by the council to manage all of the nature reserves and who are usually not on duty at the same time. Contrast this with the number of office based managers in parks and you see a total failure of Governance in what the priorities should be in a department. It is both an longstanding directorship failure, and a longstanding political and councillor failure to change this blinkered money wasting model.

Take for example a well publicised via The Sandwell skidder blog purchase of a 50+ year old banger coffee wagon allegedly approved by the former director  controlling parks for Lightwood’s Park which cost a reputed £39,000. We are sure that this could have been used to buy instead a machine that bales the cut grass. It isn’t rocket science is it? Coffee and cakes in the South of the borough are obviously more important to them.

We have attended the parks friends of parks forum meetings , where you rarely get any questions answered, minutes months later or not at all and claims that things would be sent out the next week, which seldom are. The level of criticism of SMBC we can tell you amongst other friends of groups is well known to the council and is almost universal in terms of what has been taking place over the last two years. Clearly, this model has run its course and is no longer viable, if it ever was. The vast majority of friends groups have members well into retirement age and no younger active volunteers to undertake physical work. It has however over the last four years become apparent that many SMBC and Serco staff are averse to physical work that would endanger their inflated sense of self preservation and “elf and safety”.

Take for example arguments between parks and Shirko to clear items dumped on Sheepwash at entrance points and within the site, particularly needles dumped by junky “rough sleeper” scum.

One exception to the public sector malaise has been Diane Gilbert, who we would like to thank for sorting the fly tipping mess out at many entrances on Sheepwash that were left there by said departments of the council and the private contractor.

Of course , as well as reporting matters, we have also planted wild flowers, paid for by ourselves and not by Sandwell council. It’s time this site was treated more like a nature reserve with those values, and not a second rate country park.

There are a couple of good Youtube videos from the Midlands Outdoors channel which explore Sheepwash and the surrounding Canal and Rattlechain lagoon area. Be sure to give that channel a subscribe and like.

Obviously locals will venture over here every day, to walk their dogs, go to work or for exercise, but these videos offer a newby’s experience to the area and a genuine unbiased commentary on what he sees. Using drone footage, subtle music and a gentle narration, it captures a moment of reflection about the industrial past and the changing face of nature within it.

Some links to complement the videos can be seen below under each.

First a visit to Sheepwash entering at John’s Lane. The “derelict house” is of course connected to the former farm and currently houses two businesses.

♥The bird flight diverters, and the story of how those were added by National Grid can be read HERE. 

♥ The overview history of the site can be read HERE. 

♥The story of the two brickworks once occupying the site can be read HERE. 

♥The Haines branch canal story is HERE. 

♥ The transformation of the site from industrial to nature reserve recovery is discussed HERE. 

The next video explores more of Sheepwash, but also Rattlechain lagoon and connecting BCN mainline.

There is considerable history and controversy surrounding the white phosphorus chemical waste dump of the former Albright and Wilson. 

♠ Further sightings and discussion of The Netherton tunnel can be read HERE. 

♠ The Rattlechain brickworks story can be read HERE. 

♠ Historic pictures/maps and discussion of the Rattlechain brickworks/lagoon are HERE. 

♠ This can be read in conjunction with how John’s Lane has changed HERE. 

♠ Discussion of the two tunnels into Sheepwash can be found HERE. 

♠ An overview of someone who carried Albright and Wilson’s toxic waste by canal barge from their Langley factory can be read HERE

♠ An updated “what’s left” of this “toxic trail” journey is HERE. 

♠ Some of the views from the hill overlooking Rattlechain lagoon are discussed HERE. 

♠ The issue of white phosphorus poisoning wildfowl on the lagoon, and the story of how campaigners had to take on this muti-national company can be read HERE. 

♠ These birds were found to be being systemically poisoned, see HERE and HERE by the waste chemical contained in this lake. 

♠The Friends of Sheepwash remain committed to campaigning against building any houses on or adjacent to this contaminated land which directly threatens the nature reserve and connected wildlife. 

On 22nd November The Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve and volunteers will be planting wild flower bulbs in an area of the reserve near to the main entrance in Sheepwash Lane.

The event will be led by Sandwell’s Countryside Rangers, and we also hope to be joined by Litterwatch on the day between 10 am-12pm in a litter pick in the vicinity.

The Friends of Sheepwash have purchased 500 bulbs, with 100 each of the species

English Bluebells    Hyacinthoides non-scripta 

Common Snowdrops  Galanthus nivalis

Snakeshead Fritillary    Fritillaria meleagris

Wild Daffodil      Narcissus pseudonarcissus:

Wood Anemone Anemone nemorosa

We need help in this Autumn planting trial event to see how they fair on the site, and hopefully the area will look brighter between February- May next year and increase biodiversity for pollinators.

All equipment will be supplied on the day, but the rangers advise volunteers to wear suitable clothing and footwear in case of adverse weather or ground conditions. Please support this event if you can.

A guide to planting can be read below, but instruction will be given on the day.

Bulb-Planting-Instructions

Sheepwash is a Local Nature Reserve, and we want to keep it that way as a friends of group.

I deliberately chose to use the word “protect” in the domain name for this website, and not “The Friends of Sheepwash” as I believe that the site and its designation to be more important than a group of people who use the name. There will never be any promotion of individuals or their business interests and nor are we here to promote the interests of Sandwell council- this is about the history of the site, and a celebration of what has been achieved, and a campaign to keep it from being turned into something else.

As an “urban park” the site was not protected, from development, from external users and from individuals within the council itself; it wasn’t that long ago that some bright spark was talking about creating a nine hole golf course- no thanks, not then, not now, not ever!

It is also recognised that green space within Sandwell is coming under widespread attack from development, attack because politicians are using the term “brownfield land” to describe areas that have re-wilded which could become local nature reserves like sheepwash instead of more monopoly box houses to line the pockets of the construction industry.

You only have to look at the former Black Country plan to see the proposals of how many houses have been prescribed in the Lower Tividale area that borders Sheepwash to see that Sheepwash is under pressure from multiple sides, including the wildlife corridor of the canal.

We made representations at every stage of that plan, and have again in the Sandwell plan, opposing these development proposals, and talk of “garden cities” and anything else to window dress such developments will be opposed at every stage of the planning process to protect sheepwash.

There have also been other sites such as the Londonderry Playing fields, ripped up to build the aquatics centre, and the axe hanging over Lion Farm Playing Fields, and the highly controversial Brandhall Golf course development where it was clear that the majority of local people responding were against those plans.

Even though we have sort answers as to rumoured car parks on Sheepwash and have voiced our total opposition to such schemes, there are individuals who used to be in Sandwell Council who appear to have pushed this agenda privately outside of our group, and we would say to them, you have no business case to use tax payers money in this way, are pushing something which evidentially attracts anti social behaviour on every other Sandwell open space site where there are car parks, and go against the council’s own “climate emergency” and air quality agenda when the majority of site users visit the site by foot- which is to be encouraged is it not?

Let us also see how Sandwell Valley has eroded over the last 20 years from a nature reserve status into a “country park” free for all where competing uses, multi events and mass gatherings of people including disposable barbeques and swimming with dogs in swan pool are now the norm there every weekend. We will never want to see any of this at Sheepwash, and we wish to “protect” it from anyone who does.

And let us also raise the issue of how we as a friends group found out that Sheepwash had no bye-laws, when someone in Sandwell council failed to enact them when the site became a nature reserve in 2001, despite written evidence from officers at that time that this would be a formality!

In this regard, we use the term “protect” with good purpose and intention, and reserve our own counsel on what to call this website, thank you very much!

As for The Friends group, I wish to carry on the work of previous Chairs, Geoff Williams, Malcolm Beckley, Fred Perry and Chris Adams in recognising that Sheepwash is a resource to be used for education and to protect and preserve nature first and foremost, and where conflicts of interest arise, the needs of wildlife will take priority- as per our constitution.

Some individuals who have never even attended any of our meetings have previously bad mouthed us via social media and have no idea as to the hundreds of hours put in by campaigning, rescuing wildlife, reporting incidents and giving statements, to dealing with pollution incidents. Not everything we do has to be a self publicity photo opportunity or rolling progress report and much of the time it is just left to a couple of individuals who do more than moan.

We will continue to press with your support a site that is welcoming and has the facilities and fair share of the cash that it deserves. We will always hold the council to account and not stop campaigning to keep Sheepwash a place where wildlife can thrive and is protected.

Ian Carroll. Chair The Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve.