Sandwell Notices

Within 3 days of the appearance of the ‘farming’ notice to which I referred in my last post, Sandwell had put up not 1 or 2, but 3 notices of its own.

I don’t know, but I’m guessing, that the farming notice hit a nerve somewhere, causing the great Sandwell machine to grind into action, and in particular, to put the Sandwell Special Sign Secretariat (SSSS) on alert.

So serious were the allegations in the farming notice (that Sandwell is self-serving and environmentally indifferent) my further guess is that SSSS would have sought guidance from the secret and rarely accessed Sandwell High Intensity Thinktank. (Sandwell are currently working on an acronym for this unit – any suggestions should be sent directly to Sandwell but will probably be deemed as most unhelpful)

One of Sandwell’s notices was about the, now routine, removal of trees; shrubs and mature hedgerows, this time down a goodly length of Park Lane to facilitate the creation of another few hundred yards of plaited fences.

Another notice was about the further routine removal of trees and shrubs in Jubilee Woods. This follows a ‘necessary thinning out’ of the woodland which took place last year, and will enable the construction of a ‘fantastic’ mountain cycle trail.

But the notice which I found most interesting was about the huge cull of  trees and mature shrubs which has recently taken place at one end of Swan Pool and which has left the site virtually barren.

The notice says ‘  …. you may have noticed that some vegetation works have take place ….’       ‘….this has involved the removal of a number of young trees and areas of bramble ……’

‘ ….. we have retained as many mature trees as possible.’

Like here ................

.........  and here .......

......... and here .......

..........  and here ......

etc etc etc I've loads more photos of felled mature trees, in just the last 2 or 3 months, all round the Valley.

So, Sandwell, you carry on telling yourself about how you are retaining as many mature trees as possible, while the rest of us ponder the old adage – ‘You can fool some of the people some of the time, but Sandwell fools itself all of the time’ - if it thinks that anyone other than the Green Flag people, believes this kind of tosh.

.

Farming at Sandwell Valley

On Saturday, 2nd March, 2013, a notice appeared attached to a tree by Swan Pool. It was a nicely done thing - properly laminated and so on - and seemed, at first sight to be from Sandwell. However, a brief scan of the first few lines left the reader in no doubt that it was a spoof.

Here is a photo of it. 

The bright sunshine behind me and the gloss finish makes it somewhat indistinct. For those who aren't able to discern its import, the gist of it is this.

The author objects to the massive amount of tree and hedge clearance which Sandwell have undertaken. He (I'm assuming for ease that the author is a 'he') says that the bird population has decreased significantly during the last 5 years which he attributes directly to Sandwell's actions, whilst at the same time farming activities, and the costs thereof, have increased with, he says, little or no return.

Well, I can't vouch for any of his facts and figures, but I do go along with his underlying point which is that Sandwell has without doubt caused colossal and irreparable damage to a once piece of unspoilt countryside. And I go further than him, because he makes no reference to the urbanisation of the Valley. My view is that the installation of CCTV; street lights; automated car park barriers; warning notices; barbed wire topped fences; litter bins; dog discharge bins and the like, all take away the 'natural' aspect of the Valley. There is nothing 'natural' there any more. Everything is either man made or man interfered with. 

And why?

My opinion, as often stated, is not that Sandwell has done this because it likes farmers. My view is that Sandwell has done this as part of a job creation and preservation scheme for some of its staff, coupled with the hope, and probably expectation, that one or more of its Councillors will at some stage get recognition for 'services to ..' something or other.

Call me cynical if you like but it's the only explanation I can come up with. 

No concerned organisation would ravage the Valley, at any time, in the way that Sandwell has done, unless it had a driving case for doing so. And no Local Authority would spend the money that Sandwell has done on work carried out during years when every penny spent should have been scrutinised and justified as absolutely necessary, unless it had a driving case for doing so.

Don't tell me that the driving case was Sandwell's all consuming desire to foster farming - especially as it sold off its dairy herd only last year.

And don't tell me that the driving case was Sandwell's response to a great upsurge of requirement from Council Tax payers. How many people live in Sandwell? 300,000? (... and there's close on a million next door in Birmingham!) And on a sunny summer's day, how many do you see there? And for most of the rest of the year how many do you see there? No, the evidence is clear that less than 1% of Council Tax payers have any interest in either visiting Sandwell Valley or what their elected representatives have done to it.

So if the people (who are the ultimate paymasters of Sandwell) aren't interested in the Valley - why has Sandwell spent so much time and money doing so many things which have completely changed the nature of the place?

There's only one answer.

Sandwell is doing it for itself; its Councillors and its staff. 

There can be no other reason.

.