Object

Representation ID: 23573

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Agent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Broadly and Summarised:
1) We support the exclusion / non-inclusion of the Seven Cornfields as a site for housing development.
2) We support the saving of the Green Belt Seven Cornfields site.
3) We oppose development on the Green Belt and important greenfield sites.
4) We do not support the housing forecast model used. Equality Impact assessment is needed.
5) We do not support the excessive housing target of 76,000 homes.
6) We believe there should be greater equity and equality within the local planning process and Nolan standards of public office be upheld.
7) We believe the Seven Cornfields is an important carbon sink, it contributes to care of the planet and local areas, avoids flooding and provides equality of access.
8) The report addresses amongst others Para 3.15-3.16, Policy DEL2, Policy HOU1, Policy CC1
9) Brownfield, derelict land, retail and office spaces can meet the housing demands.

The Seven Cornfields site comes in the highest of five categories of Green Belt in the South Staffordshire Green Belt survey – loss would be of ‘very high harm’ to the Green Belt - and in the higher of two categories of Green Belt in the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) survey – ‘principle contribution’ - but much of the wedge further out towards Wombourne is categorised in the GBHMA survey in the lower ‘supporting contribution’ and the overall area west of Wolverhampton is one of the areas where it thought that ‘proportionate dispersal’ (small developments) might be appropriate. It is, however, much worse north of the Black Country, where two more proportional dispersal search areas, a ‘development area with an employment focus’, two ‘urban extensions’ and two possible ‘new settlements’ are postulated!
The Seven Cornfields are a microcosm, at present there are patches of woodland surrounded by arable fields, there are, however, wildlife corridors, hedgerows and footpaths where wildlife can move round at night passing unseen down these trails, so the woodland patches are not isolated one from the other. The wedge as a whole allows this connectivity to extend to the open countryside, thus physically linking large areas of Wolverhampton (and Dudley) with rural South Staffordshire.

The ecosystem has developed over centuries but has been able to adapt to minor intrusions of humankind.

If houses are built on all of the Seven Cornfields, hedgerows cleared and the Penn Brook banks manicured and landscaped for the residents of the new estate then these vulnerable corridors will disappear. The wildlife of the woodlands will vanish. Anthropogenic species like foxes will persist but bats, xxxxxx and butterflies and perhaps the birds of prey will be lost for this and future generations.

The road system around the Seven Cornfields site is congested and insufficient for any additional traffic. Access points to the site will become pinch points. At peak times all the housing estate’s feeder roads onto main highways are already gridlocked.

The roads from Penn, Ettingshall Park, Northway and Goldthorn estates towards Wolverhampton and Birmingham are congested and at capacity. Wolverhampton and Dudley residents will bear the brunt of the traffic increase.

The development of houses will place a huge strain on the infrastructure of the Goldthorn Park, Northway, Ettingshall Park and Penn estates which are adjoining areas to the Green Belt under threat.

THE STAFFORDSHIRE BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

The Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan (SBAP) to which South Staffordshire Council are joint partners with other organisations, has been in place since 1998 in order to co-ordinate conservation efforts to deliver the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Several pairs of Skylark breed on the rough grassland at Penwood Farm (The Seven Cornfields) and this species has its own Action Plan in the SBAP.
......
4.Dramatic Weather Patterns and Flooding Few could dispute in Britain, Europe and the World dramatic changes in weather patterns have resulted in Floods which the consequential economic, social and physical damages and costs. It is beyond stupid to develop on sites where the risks of Flooding on the site and adjacent areas is probable or already demonstrated. The Seven Cornfields site, for instance, has suffered from changes in the water layers and there has been frequent flooding of the Penn Golf Club site. This problem will in every likelihood of greater flooding and damage on the Golf course if the Seven Cornfields site is developed. Policy CC1
....
14. Carbon Sink
The Seven Cornfields provide a carbon sink for Wolverhampton. The importance of this asset to address air pollution and store atoms like carbon cannot be overestimated. It is fundamental to survival on this planet and locally that carbon is captured and stored.
....
The Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group do not consider the loss of the Seven Cornfields and other Green Belt sites this is a price worth paying for additional houses. Especially when the forecasting model is questionable and based on assumptions from a economic and social world that was so different prior to Covid 19 than after its emergence.


Here a list of planning reasons behind the objections to development on the Seven Cornfields:
Affordable Housing Mix

The mix of much needed affordable social housing provided is unclear and cannot be guaranteed.

Insufficient local infrastructure

Transport and Traffic Congestion - too much extra housing around the borders of Wolverhampton and Dudley will lead to further pollution and congestion on busy roads.

The road system around Seven Cornfields site is congested and insufficient for any additional traffic. At peak times all the estates feeder roads onto main roads are already gridlocked.

The roads from Penn, Ettingshall Park, Northway and Goldthorn estates towards Wolverhampton and Birmingham are congested and at capacity. Wolverhampton and Dudley residents will bear the brunt of the traffic increase.

The development of thousands of houses will place a huge strain on the infrastructure of the Goldthorn Park, Northway, Ettingshall Park and Penn estates which are adjoining areas to the Green Belt.

No Accident and Emergency facilities exist in the South Staffordshire. Additional pressure will be placed on Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley or New Cross Wolverhampton Hospitals. Both hospitals are at capacity.

Primary and Secondary Schooling provision will be exhausted.

The development of the Wolverhampton part of the Seven Cornfields will make it easy of a developer or developers to build on the South Staffs part of the site. And Vice Versa. There are infrastructure issues which revolve around Policing, Fire Service coverage and Ambulance callouts. Is South Staffordshire likely to increase funding of policing and Fire Coverage at Wombourne? Ambulances would have to respond from New Cross and Russells Hall Hospitals.

Health and Well Being will be affected badly because of the further strain on GP surgeries, hospitals and dental services

There will be a loss of spare service capacity, for example, waste disposal

Environmental issues

The proposed developments are over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity

Increasing hazards and dangers on the roads will follow excess road traffic, there will be a decline in road safety, an increase in accident hot spots, increased noise, floods, fire risks from local warming

Negative Environmental Impact across the area with a loss of wildlife, biodiversity, air quality, open spaces,

Scale of developments would affect the water table and massively increase the extent and duration of flooding, for instance at Penn Golf Course

Unacceptably high density / over-development of the Penn Wood or Seven Cornfields site.

Adverse effects on residential amenity of adjoining estates and neighbours, by reason of -among other factors - noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [ note noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will have to be taken into account, in relation to conditions that may be imposed on the planning permission, dealing with hours and methods of working, etc. during the development around sites where vulnerable people are present - Sedgley Blind Institute]

Quality of life of existing residents will suffer.

Loss of Green Belt will result in urban sprawl, the merging of towns and housing estates

Linked directly to the increase in traffic and the loss of green belt land is the deterioration of environmental factors such as air quality.

Penn, Goldthorn, Blakenhall, Ettingshall Park and Northway estates suffer from stationary traffic during commuting hours, as a result the level of air pollution from vehicle fumes is excessive. An additional 1000s of vehicles would increase the likelihood of respiratory illness like Asthma.

Increased associated vehicle noise levels is inevitable together with accident rates associated with the increase in vehicle numbers.

Public transport would need to be reviewed and would in all likelihood require increased investment

Loss of recreation, play and open spaces especially important for people with mental health problems

Access to the rail infrastructure is distant and prohibitive but Option A has the right level of infrastructure in play.

Visual impact of the development making area unattractive to inward investment.

Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood will be detrimental.

Loss of existing views from neighbouring properties and estates would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users.
.
Green belt destruction.

Development of green belt land will negatively contribute to climate change issues in every case.

Loss of enjoyment, discovery and exploration,

Loss of family, exercise and health benefits of fields for walkers, dog-walkers, naturalists

Areas proposed for development clearly on established green belt are close to ancient woodlands, large parts of the established eco systems would be destroyed together with the associated wildlife

Mental Health problems are on the rise and everyone needs quiet places to relax and meditate on established and well used public open space accessible without the use of vehicles. Local residents have a place to relax using a network of very well established footpaths and highways through historic agricultural land.

Loss of habitat and wildlife from the area would be irreversible.

The new roads for homes and associated driveways would contribute to flooding and effect the natural balance of the area.

Massive loss of Green Belt, footpaths and open aspect of the neighbourhood (‘green belt grabbing’ on an unnecessary and industrial scale )


10. THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS CAMPAIGN GROUP
OPPOSES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON THE GREEN BELT AND THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS AND OBJECTS TO ANY LOSS OF GREEN BELT SITES IN OR AROUND WOLVERHAMPTON OR DUDLEY


There should be a basic opposition to dismantling any part of the Green Belt - it is a simple concept which has served Britain well in comparison with other countries in protecting our countryside. Indeed, it might be said that rural - and urban in leafy suburbs - tourism has been a success because of Green Belt status sustained in large visitor centres.

The purposes of the Green Belt include the protection against encroachment from and between adjoining major urban areas. They prevent regions, counties, sub-regions like the Black Country and districts swallowing their green boundaries and then as if by accident become an urban sprawl. They act as a barrier to the coalescence of rural and urban settlements in order to retain the attractive distinctive character of each rural or urban setting of settlements. The original land use planning developed with titles like the Town and Country Act - this showed the importance of the distinction.

Housing development on key Green Belt sites adjacent to housing estates cannot be allowed because infrastructure is necessary and must be sufficient to serve the demands generated.

Additional infrastructure and upgrading will have to take place prior to development of housing. Roads will have to extended possibly widened and traffic management systems upgraded to control flows productively and effectively. Their critical educational issue will be the provision of a secondary school. This will need to be built and the schools made operational prior to the housing development completion.

This in turn will mean that those living on estates adjacent to the site will suffer from:
Loss of clean air
Serious local flooding due to lost natural water drainage
Shortage of local school places as competition increases will be dramatic
Class sizes will in turn increase poor education attainment
Hospital patient face longer waiting lists
Waiting time for doctor appointments will increase
The extent of traffic jams and grid lock on local feeder roads will increase
There will be less recreational space for walks or play
There will be a loss of local wildlife and plants

The Black Country Plan 2039 needs to take account of the Green Belt Review published by LUCs, which seek to assess parcels of land within the Green Belt against the five tests set out in Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


11. THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS CAMPAIGN GROUP
OPPOSES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON PENNWOOD FARM AND THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS SITE


The Seven Cornfields site comes in the highest of five categories of Green Belt in the South Staffordshire Green Belt survey – loss would be of ‘very high harm’ to the Green Belt - and in the higher of two categories of Green Belt in the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) survey – ‘principle contribution’ - but much of the wedge further out towards Wombourne is categorised in the GBHMA survey in the lower ‘supporting contribution’ and the overall area west of Wolverhampton is one of the areas where it thought that ‘proportionate dispersal’ (small developments) might be appropriate. It is however much worse north of the Black Country, where two more proportional dispersal search areas, a ‘development area with an employment focus’, two ‘urban extensions’ and two possible ‘new settlements’ are postulated!

The Seven Cornfields are a microcosm, at present there are patches of woodland surrounded by arable fields, there are, however, wildlife corridors, hedgerows and footpaths where wildlife can move round at night passing unseen down these trails, so the woodland patches are not isolated one from the other. The ecosystem has developed over centuries but has adapted to minor intrusions of humankind. If houses are built on all of the Seven Cornfields, hedgerows cleared and the Penn Brook banks manicured and landscaped for the residents of the new estate then these vulnerable corridors will disappear. The wildlife of the woodlands will vanish. Anthropogenic species like foxes will persist but bats, xxxxxs and butterflies and perhaps the birds of prey will be lost for this and future generations.

Pennwood Farm is an important wildlife corridor and represents one of the more ecologically rich and varied mosaics of habitats in the wider farming community, where the wildflowers on adjoining farms have been destroyed by spraying, and these farms have been virtually sterilised by over-intensification and are much less rich in invertebrates and the birds that breed and feed on them.

The farm has important hedgerows for breeding Yellowhammers and the rough grassland supports several pairs of Skylark. Both species are Red Listed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as species of National Conservation Concern.
The Horse paddocks and associated bridleways and rough ground support good populations of nectar sources which in turn support 22 species of butterflies, making it a 'hot spot' in South Staffordshire.
Ancient woodland and hedgerows around the farm are important breeding areas for a variety of birds and 72 species have been recorded on the farm in recent years.

The Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan

The Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan (SBAP) to which South Staffordshire Council are joint partners with other organisations, has been in place since 1998 in order to co-ordinate conservation efforts to deliver the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Several pairs of Skylark breed on the rough grassland at Penwood Farm (The Seven Cornfields) and this species has its own Action Plan in the SBAP.

See Appendix 2. Extracts from Staffordshire County Council Protected Species Advice Document
which includes planning advice and guidance on biodiversity conservation.

Detail of Butterflies population on the Seven Cornfields can be found in Appendix 3. Butterflies recorded annually at the Seven Cornfields, Pennwood Farm.

Flooding

Currently, Penn Golf Course suffers from frequent flooding and there are concerns that the water table will be affected to bring other areas into zones of high risk of flooding if development of housing proceeds on the Green Belt without an assessment of the likelihood of flooding in a particular area so that development needs and mitigation measures should be carefully considered.

There is an important water course on the Seven Cornfields known as Penn Brook, this was originally called Lloyd brook, it flows westwards across the common from its source on Colton Hills. When the brook leaves the common it becomes the River Wom (after which Wombourne is named).

Penn Brook is one of the key tributaries of Smestow Brook. It falls 90 metres (300 feet) in 8 kilometres (5 miles). The Penn Brook rises in the natural amphitheatre created by the heights of Goldthorn Park, the Northway and Colton Hills.

Development of the sloping site of the Seven Cornfields is likely to cause additional flooding problems especially as annual rainfall appears to be increasing.

Significant transport investment is needed to support options.

The thinking on growth is wanting and depends too heavily on extinguishing Green Belt status.

Economic Development perspectives are weak within the policies and the proper benefits of a Local Plan are lost as no attempt has been made to link the changed technological, sociological and economic landscape into a cogent framework for the future. More work needs to be done.

There is a need for additional infrastructure with an extra range of alternatives to support the requirements of integrated transport to effectively and efficiently accommodate such excessive housing growth as promoted.


Appendix 1

KEY POINTS MADE TO SOUTH STAFFS
AN EXTRACT FROM SUBMISSION

That South Staffordshire expects their distinctive character to be maintained whilst destroying others is a matter that needs to be considered fully. What holds as a valid principle for guiding Local Plans must have an equivalence when used as an objection to a proposal.

Whilst the South Staffordshire Local Plan’s movement for growth does not obliterate high proportion or significant high percentages of South Staffordshire’s total Green Belt land ( ‘Much of South Staffordshire (80%) lies within the West Midlands Green Belt (32,089 hectares)”). It does affect and obliterate important proportions or a high percentage of the very limited Green Belt available in Dudley and Wolverhampton that creates a distinctive character of Green around urban local settlements in Dudley and Wolverhampton.

A loss for Staffordshire of Green Belt sites has very minimal effects on the local Shire character because South Staffs has so much Green Belt.

The erosion of Green Belt in South Staffordshire by our boundaries, however, has a disproportional negative affect on the distinctive character and quality of life of neighbourhoods in Wolverhampton and Dudley.

At the end of the Forward,

“South Staffordshire has historically proven to be an attractive location for people to live. It has been a destination for people moving from the West Midlands major urban area and other nearby towns. Pressure for housing growth over and above the needs arising purely from within the district has continued. South Staffordshire’

Then in the Executive Summary of the Housing Strategy,

“Our preferred approach, Option G, is very much Member led. We believe Option G will meet our housing numbers, make a contribution (under our legal Duty to Cooperate) to the wider unmet housing need and also take account of the impact of development on current infrastructure and what opportunities there are for new and improved infrastructure. This approach will, however, lead to Green Belt release and this is something that has been very carefully considered in formulating the options. We know there are very difficult decisions to be made in providing new homes and protecting the Green Belt.”

A forensic examination of this statement and its implications reveals an underlying ethical, moral, professional and political intent. This is inherent and pervasive within the documents which support the Housing Strategy and Local Plan, it reveals a prevailing and unwanted sympathy.

The Preferred Option and majority of other Housing Options that allow a Housing Target build of 8,000 as presented or captured in the South Staffordshire Housing Strategy and Local Plan can only be possibly categorised in harsh terms as parasitism, imperialism and colonialism. Although harsh, a quick turn to the Oxford Dictionary of English allows a judgement and check:

a) “Parasitism ‘habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return’.”
b) “Imperialism ‘a policy of extending a country’s [local authority’s] power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means’ ”
b) “Colonialism ‘the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country [local authority area], occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically’ ”

Globally, policies of that nature were detrimental to indigenous populations and ecosystems and disregarded the care, needs and demands of those existing populations, residential communities, people, groups and individuals. Applied in more local practices within the Local Plan, they are equally unpalatable since the strategy seeks to impose a leadership or dominance by one state - South Staffordshire Council - or social group (Elected members as this is after all a member-led strategy) over others, the Wolverhampton and Dudley communities adversely affected at the boundaries by development on the Green Belt. It relies on exploiting others and gives nothing in return.

It is also not clear why in Plan B, urban extensions are biased towards west of the Black Country. There is a key question that follows this bias and it needs to be answered: Why was it found necessary for urban extensions to be biased towards west of the Black Country in this particular plan?

There is as much, or more, Green Belt land of less than high or very high harm in the north and more land beyond the Green Belt but still in perfect reach of the whole conurbation via the A5, M6 and M54. This is much less true of Green Belt west of the Black Country, however close in proximity to the conurbation. A requirement for development to be in ‘close proximity’ to the conurbation would inevitably impinge on high harm Green Belt.

It’s more about Income and Wealth rather than Planning and Housing Considerations

South Staffordshire Council’s Local Plan highlights land for development as requirement of central Government however, the extra 4,000 above target largely is made largely on economic basis to increase their income collected by the Council.

Housing development claims on South Staffordshire Council’s infrastructure investment would be at a very low relative level with additional residents being serviced by neighbouring boroughs, whilst allowing a steady revenue stream to South Staffordshire Council through the chargeable Council tax for higher band "more expensive" properties. The costs of infrastructure would fall unfairly on the adjoining areas of Wolverhampton and Dudley who would not receive the Council Tax receipts. Imperial, parasitic and/ or colonial what words best describe this relationship?

South Staffordshire is rightly proud that it is prosperous with the proportion of those employed within the top three professional and managerial sectors being above the national average. Many if not most of these are people employed outside the area who bring the income from elsewhere into South Staffs to create a wealth base there.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Different Options in South Staffordshire Housing Strategy

The Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group has fully considered the various Housing Options which are presented in summary form in the Appendices. There was much discussion of the advantages and disadvantage of these but reason, logic, planning considerations and the common purpose of community interests lead to a series of objections, endorsements and comments which are provided in much greater detail below in the following pages.

Option B includes development of Green Belt and achieves the full plan of 9,130 dwellings between 2018 and 2037, including the unnecessary full contribution of up to 4,000 dwellings to the GBHMA, but avoids allocating growth to Green Belt areas of high or very high harm. The Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group acknowledges this is the second best (after Option A) in terms of protecting the Green Belt.
.

Appendix 2.
Extracts from Staffordshire County Council Protected Species Advice Document
Skylark
A national BAP target species with a costed action plan and a Staffordshire BAP target species. Ground nesting in grassland or low vegetation including crops. Skylarks require open areas with an absence of features such as trees and hedgerows that act as perches for potential predators. They will not nest in confined areas. Spring planting is key where arable land is used for nesting.
Yellowhammer
UK BAP species of conservation concern and Staffordshire BAP target species. Nearly always nests on the ground, if not, always close to it hidden among grass and herbage, typically against a bank or at the base of a hedge, small tree or bush. The yellowhammer begins laying from April to early August and frequently produces two and sometimes three broods, each taking up to 28 days to fledge and therefore they have usually cleared the nest site by mid-September. skylark begins laying between late March and late April and may produce four broods, each taking between 21 and 30 days to fledge and therefore they have usually cleared the nest site by August.

Planning Guidance and Protected Species Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation includes a set of Key Principles that should be applied to all planning decisions. These include: • Planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date information; • Planning decisions should give due weight to protected species and to biodiversity interests within the wider environment; • Planning decisions should aim to maintain biodiversity interests and to enhance, restore or add to these; • The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity interests. Where significant harm may ensue from planning consent, planning authorities should be satisfied that the development cannot be alternatively located. Should alternatives not be available, adequate mitigation must be put in place before planning permission is granted, or, if mitigation is not feasible, appropriate compensation measures must be included in development proposals. • Planning consent should be refused if harm cannot be prevented and adequate mitigation or compensation cannot be secured.

In addition to legally protected species, PPS9 (paragraph 16) advises that local authorities should ensure that species of conservation priority and their habitat are protected from the adverse effects of development. A list of these species was drawn up in response to section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and can be found on the Defra website. This list is also referenced by sections 40 and 41 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 (see s.2.5 and Appendix 1).

Guidance on the application of legislation related to planning and nature conservation is found in Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (ODPM Circular 06/2005, Defra Circular 01/2005) which complements PPS9. Paragraph 98 advises that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration in considering planning proposals. Paragraph 116 advises that the presence of a European protected species should be given due weight in making planning decisions and may justify refusal of planning consent. Paragraph 99 states that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent to which it might be affected by a proposed development, must be established prior to the granting of permission, otherwise all material considerations may not have been addressed.

This means, as the Circular advises, that ecological surveys should be carried out prior to consent and should not be conditioned except in exceptional circumstances. Measures for species protection should be incorporated into planning proposals prior to consent and be implemented through conditions and/or planning agreements. While the presence of a protected species does not need to be already recorded, survey should only be required where there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being affected by the development. It should be noted that planning consent does 11 not provide derogation from the requirements of protected species legislation which must still be met, including through the acquisition of licences where relevant.
APPENDIX 3.

Butterflies recorded annually at The Seven Cornfields, Pennwood Farm, Wolverhampton
(compiled from personal records by David Jackson on behalf of the West Midlands Branch of Butterfly Conservation)

1. Essex Skipper – Fairly common along grassy strips and uncut field margins.
2. Small Skipper- ditto as with the above-mentioned species.
3. Large Skipper- Several usually encountered in uncut field edges and on Bramble patches.
4. Orange Tip – several seen each Spring, along banks and in damper patches where Garlic Mustard and Cuckooflower, its larval stage food-plants grow.
5. Large White- Not as common as it was 4-5 years ago but still frequently seen.
6. Small White – common in the planted fields.
7. Green -veined White - as with Orange Tip requires damper patches of farmland where Garlic Mustard and Cuckooflowers grow. Up to a dozen are recorded each season.
8. Brimstone- scarce.
9. Speckled Wood – common along hedgerows and by edges of shady woodland.
10. Ringlet – common along uncut hedgerow bases, in longer grass.
11. Meadow Brown- common in set aside and longer grass in uncut paddocks.
12. Gatekeeper- Several usually seen basking by gates on Bramble and Bracken.
13. Marbled White - occasional visitors stray onto the farm from a strong colony on Sedgley Beacon.
14. Red Admiral – singles frequently seen on the farm near to Common Nettles.
15. Painted Lady – on a good ‘Painted Lady Year’ several can be encountered on the farm.

1. Peacock- singles frequently seen on the farm usually near Nettle beds which its larval stage requires to breed.
2. Small Tortoiseshell – up to a dozen encountered each year on the farm usually near Nettles used by its larva to feed.
3. Comma – ditto as per the two above-mentioned species.
4. Small Copper- scarce but recorded annually near Common Sorrel its larval stage food-plant.
5. Purple Hairstreak- usually seen high up in the woodland Oaks in small discrete colonies.
6. Holly Blue- several seen each year in and around Holly bushes and Ivy covered trees.
7. Common Blue - over the past two years there has been a resurgence from six or seven individuals seen per year, now up to two dozen recorded on a good day in the uncut meadows and horse paddocks, where its larval stage main food-plants Common Birds foot Trefoil and White Clover grow.