Policy WSA4 – Yieldsfield Farm (sometimes recorded as Yieldfields farm), Stafford Road, Bloxwich

Comment

Representation ID: 10631

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Edwards

This tract of land shows ample access opportunities for infrastructure and could be extended to encompass further development of homes, having no impact from flood plain and little requirement to create expensive roads to support the development, this would provide opportunity for other indicated development locations (WSA2) to be removed from this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10740

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Jeanette Moore

Good Aernoon

I’m emailing about the current planning consultations going on & live on the Stafford Road, Newtown, Great Wyrley.

I wish to object to any decision concerning the proposal for an urban extension upon the land that runs from Bloxwich around our area, along with any greenbelt land.

It is more import than ever that we keep our green spaces and farmland this is for climate change, to protect our precious nature, wildlife and keep for all to enjoy and see for mental and therapeutic reasons as it’s used by people running, walking and biking.

The main road which runs from Bloxwich to Great Wyrley is already a very busy road and could not support further
traffic we already struggle to get of our drive let alone the additional pollution this would cause.

I was brought up on a council estate and have worked very hard to live in our modest semi but within this beautiful green area which I appreciate every day and it would be absolutely devastated to see it go not only for ourselves but for the different wildlife it supports

So please please do not support this area to be changed forever.

Yours Sincerely

J Moore

Object

Representation ID: 10742

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs W Garmston

Number of people: 2

To whom it may concern

I wish to object to the planning application for building on the greenbelt sites In Bloxwich, Great Wyrley and surrounding areas
My family and I moved near to the Yieldfield Farm site after living in close proximity to the Scott Arms Junction in Great Barr for 25 years. It was a conscious decision based primarily on our family having lived in a very high air polluted area and we felt that due to various health issues a move nearer to Green belt would benefit

The move also had a positive impact on our mental health as a family for being nearer the greenbelt land. There are many other options for houses to be built on brownfield sites that have not been given the same consideration

This area is wonderful in its current state but this will be lost and will end up another congested, over polluted area with standards of life reduced. Shame as this country will slowly lose, little by little all that made it great

Kind regards

Mr and Mrs Garmston

Object

Representation ID: 10743

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Rachael Harrison

Good morning,

I wish to formally lodge my concerns and objection about the proposed development of the Yeildfield farm land. The development would have significant impact on greenbelt area which is is home to a variety of wildlife including deer who regularly graze in the area. This sort of land is essential to maintain vital eco systems as well delivering on local authorities commitment of access to green space. I add the comments below to the opening paragraphs of the Green Space report which demonstrates the importance of green space. I have also attached a copy of the report.

"Greenspace, such as parks, woodland, fields and allotments as well as natural elements
including green walls, roofs and incidental vegetation, are increasingly being recognised
as an important asset for supporting health and wellbeing. This ‘natural capital’ can help
local authorities address local issues that they face, including improving health and
wellbeing, managing health and social care costs, reducing health inequalities, improving
social cohesion and taking positive action to address climate change.
Evidence shows that living in a greener environment can promote and protect good
health, and aid in recovery from illness and help with managing poor health. People who
have greater exposure to greenspace have a range of more favourable physiological
outcomes. Greener environments are also associated with better mental health and
wellbeing outcomes including reduced levels of depression, anxiety, and fatigue, and
enhanced quality of life for both children and adults. Greenspace can help to bind
communities together, reduce loneliness, and mitigate the negative effects of air
pollution, excessive noise, heat and flooding. Disadvantaged groups appear to gain a
larger health benefit and have reduced socioeconomic-related inequalities in health
when living in greener communities, so greenspace and a greener urban environment
can also be used as an important tool in the drive to build a fairer society"


Moreover, the government have committed to development of brownfield sites before greenbelt. We have seen a great example of this in Goscote where significant housing has been created on a former factory site. This is the sort of development we should be concentrating on and very proud of as a community. The Black Country, the birthplace of industry in the UK, and indeed Staffordshire have significant brownfield sites that should be developed prior to digging up green space such as the proposed Yeildfield farm development.

Moreover, the area does just not have the infrastructure to cope with a development of this size in addition to the development of brownfield site in Goscote. There is 1 petrol station to serve the area, doctors are already at capacity, schools have breached their maximum class sizes, we have 1 Park (George 5th Plating fields), 1 large supermarket and so whilst the majority of this development falls in Staffordshire the impact will mostly be felt by the residents of Walsall. Whilst Staffordshire will benefit from taxes raised from these homes it will be the Walsall tax payer having to provide the services, road repairs, doctors, schools, public transport, additional street cleaning, additional maintenance of parks etc.

Moreover, public transport will just not cope with an increase of this size. Despite electrification of the Chase line and bigger trains the service cannot cope with more people as trains are already full at peak times. Often you can't get on the train as it is full. This will drive people into their cars as public transport will no longer be an option. This is already starting to happen. It would be a significant oversight to not factor in the additional use of the train by such a development and the parking that would need to increase to avoid road parking and congestion at Landywood and Bloxwich North stations. This has an impact on local residents in terms of nuisance, noise and pollution.


Whilst I fully acknowledge the need for more houseing and particularly social housing, I strongly object to the proposed Yeildfield Farm development. Brownfield areas MUST be used before digging up more of our precious countryside and consideration should be given to how this population will be served and the extreme disruption and negative impact for the local population. The Turnberry Estate took significant greenbelt land from the area. Please do not take anymore.

Kindest regards

Rachael Harrison

Object

Representation ID: 10745

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Jane Nyirenda

Dear sirs
I understand that you are currently in the process of conducting public consultation in respect of future plans
to build on greenbelt land.

I write to register my objections to plans to build on greenbelt land in particular; Yieldfields Hall Farm
adjacent to Bloxwich Golf Course. I personally feel that in and around Walsall there are too many vacant
buildings and brownfield land that could be developed before resorting to destroying our precious greenbelt
land and the wild life that live in it. For example, builds vacated by shopkeepers which could be repurposed
to accommodate other businesses and as residential premises.

In respect of the Yieldfields Hall Farm, I fear that this would bring traffic chaos in and around Bloxwich. We
already see the Stafford Road gridlocked every time there is an accident on the M6. Therefore, building more
houses and trading premises on this site without rethinking on how Bloxwich High street can be improved to
increase the flow of traffic or better still, to bypass altogether would be irresponsible.

I therefore urge you as planners to reject any applications that may be submitted to build on this land and
other greenbelt land in the borough.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email.

Yours sincerely
Jane Nyirenda

Object

Representation ID: 10747

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Platt

Dear Sir/Madam
I object and wish to lobby against the massive urban extension planned for Essington (Bloxwich/Newtown), in regards to loss of green belt that our conservative government manifesto promised to protect.
Plus, generally lobby all other sites across South Staffs that have green belt land proposals.
As for the Essington parish massive development Bloxwich/Newtown proposal, i would raise the objection that it is such a small parish that is unable to offer employment or could support a new community of the proposed scale within it, especially when brownfield sites are available across South Staffs area that have not been built on or, considered for developed. Other points to consider:
. A34 Stafford Road to Walsall Road already is not fit for purpose with the traffic usage already in situa. The road is also a filter or cut through for excess traffic from the M6 in the event of an issue e.g accidents. This leads to grid lock, jams, congestion which is already quite often.
> . Most towns are looking at pollution levels and reducing speed clean air policy, it would seem we are considering REDUCING the air quality with the numbers of houses and cars planned for this development. Most households have a least one car, however then looking at partners and older children this can quadruple.
. Most brownfield sites at one point had working factories units, buildings and already have the roads and infrastructure in situa.
. Flooding, building on green belt in Newtown/Bloxwich and South Staffs in general is taking away our drainage fields. The North Walsall cemetery is heartbreaking as most of the baby and adult graves have flooded as more development and concrete covers our pastures.

My garden floods with the fields already so covering even more green belt with concrete the water will have no other route but to engulf what is around it, our properties.
. Gas pipes and amenities, are old and often have blocked or leak along the Stafford Road. Newtown (just my house) has had gas repairs 6 month - yearly . We have been told year after year the pipes are lead and old, like the sewerage systems and cannot cope with the houses already here. Once a repair or cap is done it put pressures further up the road and it repeats itself time and time again. Which then adds to the traffic congestion issue when they close part of the road down for repairs. Cars backed up from one end of Cannock Orbital to Bloxwich Walsall etc. That is without the motorway issue traffic and all of the above issues already sited. It is already at breaking point and days of total gridlock without adding another 2000-3000 houses?
. COVID - we have seen this disease ravish inner city areas, high density populated areas. Are we taking into account that COVID has happened, it is still with us or that another disease could evolve which prays on highly populated areas? Our green belt allows all our surrounding areas a little bit of breathing space to walk past and have a little bit of country walks after a hard days work. Would we consider building on Hyde Park? Has every bit of grass got to go, why is it named green belt meaning:-
“an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted.”

Why have I even got to contest, lobby or object? Green belt is green belt.

Brownfield sites to be developed and refuse the plans for development on our bit of green belt that we have left as once it’s gone it’s gone.

Kind Regards Mrs Platt

Object

Representation ID: 10754

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Steve & Karen Edwards

Number of people: 2

Good morning

I am wring to you to oppose the proposed Yieldfields Farm Housing Development and the removal of our Green Belt
status.
I live on Long Lane, Newtown.

I would like to know what jusfies a development of this size? Why these numbers??
There are also two planned developments in Essington Parish, this would mean even more loss of Greenbelt and a
converging conurbaon!!
Why is there a need for this proposed number of houses in such a small parish??
We cannot support a new community of this scale within it! Brownfield sites are available across adjoining boroughs
as well as South Staffs.
The traffic impacts would be massive on already congested roads which also serve as a diversion route. Our road,
Long Lane is an example of this.
We are a rat run.. cars and lorries.. some of which STILL come down here although they exceed the specified weight
limit…speed up and down this 30 mile an hour limit road. The Lane simply COULD NOT cope with an influx of even
more traffic. Where is the consideraon for the environment re increasing traffic polluon in a semi rural area?
Surely the authority should be looking to spread the provision of new housing across the borough, rather than looking
to shortcut obligaons and responsibilies to its current residents by doing it on mass in one go.

PLEASE SAVE OUR GREENBELT - BROWNFIELDS FIRST!

Kind regards

Karen and Steve Edwards

Object

Representation ID: 10759

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Jane Clarke

Good evening
I am contacting you to register my opposition to the proposed development of YIELDFIELDS Farm.

The loss of green belt will have a devastating impact on the area, as the other two developments in Essington will result in a converging conurbation, taking away each areas individuality.

I understand that there is a requirement for housing, but to take away the green belt when there are Brownfield sites available is unacceptable. This is a small parish, how can we support such a large development ? Jobs, schools,community hubs, all need funding.

I live in Long Lane, the traffic on this road is already busy as it is used as a diversion. Parking is a problem and will only get worse.

Surely the authority should be spreading the new housing across the Borough rather than building on one massive site, destroying the beautiful countryside that brought me to live in this area.

This development is not in the best interest of the constituents and I object most strongly.

Jane Clarke

Object

Representation ID: 11031

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Griffiths

I would like to register my dismay at Walsall planning to remove one of the last proper areas of agricultural green belt land at Yelderfields. I don't believe enough emphasis has been placed on how town centres will collapse following the growth of on-line shopping and the effects of Covid. There will be lots more brownfield sites available during the next few years and unless we can use them effectively there will be a dead canker at the heart of every Black Country town. In the longer term this will cause the flight of the more affluent to the countryside leaving Walsall as just one large "sink estate". If you really care about the Black Country you must stop this development as soon as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 11091

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Vanessa Biddulph

The proposed Yieldfields site is too large and will destroy the character of North Bloxwich and Great Wyrley, merging the 2. The impact on traffic and air pollution will be massive and unsustainable. the A34 is already clogged with traffic including HGV and wont cope with the increased traffic. Its important to have green land areas or people have to travel further.
The greenspace holds a lot of wildlife, often deer are seen as its an important corridor from Brownhills to Essington.

Object

Representation ID: 11110

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Vanessa Biddulph

The proposed Yieldfields site is too large and will destroy the character of North Bloxwich and Great Wyrley, merging the 2. The impact on traffic and air pollution will be massive and unsustainable. the A34 is already clogged with traffic including HGV and wont cope with the increased traffic. Its important to have green land areas or people have to travel further.
The greenspace holds a lot of wildlife, often deer are seen as its an important corridor from Brownhills to Essington

Object

Representation ID: 11575

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Harrison

I would like to register my objection to the proposed housing development at Yieldfields Farm.

I understand that if this goes ahead, the development will not be a small one but one consisting of several hundred houses. This, I think will have many consequences for the area and its environs.

Firstly, there is the loss of green belt countryside. This area has little enough green spaces as it is and can ill afford to lose any more. It means the loss of a recreational facility, impacting upon health, in addition to the destruction of many acres of wildlife habitats and established trees. In my opinion green belt areas should be protected at all costs, especially when there are so many brownfield sites in the local area which are in urgent need of redevelopment. I thought that the Conservative core policy was to develop and use brownfield sites at all times where available, rather than at the expense of green areas. It would appear that this is another potential 'u' turn by the government. I would also point out that loss of green areas leads to a loss of natural water drainage at a time when global warming is causing much flooding in the country.

The development at Yieldfields Farm would also be in very close proximity to the town of Bloxwich, a small historic town of great character. I can't help feeling that the character of this town would be diminished by the needs of so many more people.

This area is already heavily populated and I am concerned about the infrastructure requirements that would be needed to serve this proposed development. There would be a need for more public transport, schools, doctors etc. What impact is this going to have upon our already oversubscribed schools and struggling NHS?

In conclusion, I feel that the proposed development at Yieldfields Farm would be a massive mistake, which would have a detrimental effect upon the health and well- being of the local people and lead to a significant devaluation and downgrading of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11636

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Wilson

I strongly oppose the proposed development at Bloxwich East, Yieldsfield Farm as the additional
houses will cause major disruptions to the town itself and surrounding area by the sheer volume of
extra traffic and people that would suddenly be created in this location.
Surely there are plenty of brownfield sites within this area that could be utilised instead.
A perfect example is the derelict Kings Arms public house which has been empty for many years.
Could not the owners be forced to either open it back up, convert it to flats or simply knock it down
and rebuild accommodation there.
The same will shortly apply to the site of the Royal Exchange PH which is rapidly becoming an
eyesore.
I understand these are only two small locations and would not make a great deal of difference to the
expected shortage of housing, but there are other similar sites that could be utilised another example
being Stafford Street in Walsall which again has the problem of empty buildings that have been like
that for many years. Indeed the centre of Walsall has plenty of empty buildings eg the Dirty Duck
(Swan) pub that again has been unused for several years. There must be a change to the rules and
regulations that can force owners to either develop them or have them compulsory purchased by the
local authority and auctioned off to the best proposal for a new use ,preferably housing, that is
submitted to the council.

Object

Representation ID: 13240

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms and Mr Lucy and Paul Harrington and Cicerella

Number of people: 2

I object to all of it, mostly the housing development sites to be built on green belt land. I object to the building on of the sites - Homes Farm (Sandhill), Yieldfields Farm (Bloxwich), Queslett Road East/ Aldridge Road (Streetly), Sutton Road/ Longwood Lane (Pheasey Park Farm), Yorks Bridge (Pelsall), Coronation Road/ Mob Lane (Aldridge North/ Walsall Wood), Calderfields/ Aldridge Road (St Matthews), Bentley Lane (Short Heath), Johnsons Farm, Meadow Farm/ Watling Street (Brownhills)
The reason I object - I think we should be preserving what little there is of green belt land, not destroying by building houses on it. There's no denying we are destroying the world and and acts like this are not helping. I strongly oppose it on ecological grounds, there's no counting how many animals (including bugs and insects) homes will get destroyed in the process and how bad the knock on effect will be for wildlife.
Also I am completely opposed to the cutting down of healthy trees for the same reasons above.
People who do these kind of things have no respect for the life they are destroying why is it never a consideration. I cannot explain enough how against this I am

Object

Representation ID: 13504

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Wilson

I strongly oppose the proposed development at Bloxwich East, Yieldsfield Farm as the additional houses will cause major disruptions to the town itself and surrounding area by the sheer volume of extra traffic and people that would suddenly be created in this location.
Surely there are plenty of brownfield sites within this area that could be utilised instead.
A perfect example is the derelict Kings Arms public house which has been empty for many years. Could not the owners be forced to either open it back up, convert it to flats or simply knock it down and rebuild accommodation there.
The same will shortly apply to the site of the Royal Exchange PH which is rapidly becoming an eyesore.
I understand these are only two small locations and would not make a great deal of difference to the expected shortage of housing, but there are other similar sites that could be utilised another example being Stafford Street in Walsall which again has the problem of empty buildings that have been like that for many years. Indeed the centre of Walsall has plenty of empty buildings eg the Dirty Duck (Swan) pub that again has been unused for several years. There must be a change to the rules and regulations that can force owners to either develop them or have them compulsory purchased by the local authority and auctioned off to the best proposal for a new use ,preferably housing, that is submitted to the council.

Object

Representation ID: 13552

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Farnell

Map WAH232
This farmland is between Bloxwich golf club and the boundary of Walsall council and South Staffordshire's area.
If developed it would join Bloxwich to Newtown and act as a domino towards blocking in the rural area between NEwtown and Gren Wyrley.
Thus this location shouldn't be looked at in isolation. To extend the built up area from Birmingham to Cannock by allowing This area of green belt to be developed would be detrimental to the Locality, the existing towns and villages, in terms of landscape, mental health, adjacent farmland and other existing uses. This could be by
Detriment to farm animals, conflict between urbanites and the farmland, further growth of Newtown once urban areas had expanded.
There is the impact along the A34 corridor but also Fishley Lane and The area adjacent the Wyrley Essington canal for similar reasons to the A34 corridor, New town, etc.
There is also a former canal link across this farmland. I refer to the history of the Wyrley Essington canal and the Lichfield and Hatherton canals restoration trust, LHCRT.org.uk. As noted in the draft Yieldfields Hall is listed as a building of special architectural or historic interest. It is also part of the history of the Roman Catholicism under persecution historically, as recorded by St Peter's catholic church Bloxwich, Stpetersbloxwich.org.uk
Thus this site should not be subject to housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 13765

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Edna Marshall

Yieldsfield Farm Bloxwich [WAH232, WSA4]
Walsall Council Authority

Yieldsfield Hall is historical site that should be conserved. (Priesthole, catholic meetings before catholic church in Bloxwich) when Roman Catholicism was not allowed in England.
Bloxwich does not have enough resources - education, roads often blocked, close to M6. Sometimes causes traffic congestion when problems on M6 especially not enough medical G.P's for our already large population.

Object

Representation ID: 13804

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dorothy Wootton

With reference to Yieldfields Farm, Bloxwich, I am totally opposed to greenbelt land in general but to this area in particular being used for building development. When climate change is such a serious matter of concern, all pasture land, trees and wooded land must be preserved to help in our battle against carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We must look to brownfield sites for such housing development. We must do everything in our power to halt climate change

Object

Representation ID: 14203

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Alan Darby

I object to policy WSA4 ('strategic' housing site WAH 232, Bloxwich) due to (1) the loss of high-quality agricultural land and the great harm it will cause to the Green Belt (especially as that loss and harm is to be incurred to provide much further housing in an area largely devoid of employment and already functioning mainly as a 'dormitory suburb'); and (2) concerns about transport sustainability and local impacts.
I also have concerns about loss of visual amenity and loss of mature hedgrewows and trees.
As to transport, I my objection is to expected increases in vehicular traffic, especially along Turnberry Road Bloxwich. Much employment- and retail-related and other travel in the area is east-west, and, despite 'traffic calming' and its not being part of the main road network, Turnberry Road is heavily used by through traffic (in particular for the M6 and M54 motorways) avoiding the congested A4124 and B4210 through Bloxwich. The distance from the nearest rail station will deter travel by rail and/or militate for travel to Bloxwich North station (which has unrestricted car parking, free of charge) by car along Turnberry Road, and although site WAH 232 is readily capable of being served by bus in the same (A34, north-south) corridor, public transport services otherwise (notably east-west) are very limited. WAH 232 development can therefore be expected to be very heavily car-reliant unless public transport is markedly improved, and any access junction at or near the A34 Stafford Road/Turnberry Road junction will make Turnberry Road the obvious and attractive route for trips west (to the A4124 and A462 via B4210 Broad Lane). Therefore I contend that the WSA4 transport strategy must include measures to prevent any increase in Turnberry Road traffic beyond 'background' growth levels (i.e. its further use as a 'rat run'). I cannot conceive of highway measures which would be effective with WAH 232 extensively developed (short of physically closing Turnberry Road to through traffic) except building a new more direct east-west road (A34-B4210 link), and because such a road would be a further incursion into the Green Belt, I object to policy WSA4 on transport grounds until arrangements are made for a much more comprehensive network of rapid public transport services in the Bloxwich/South Staffordshire area combined with effective local highway measures to suppress vehicular traffic through residential areas. To the extent that WAH 232 is developed, it is essential to the character and street scene of Stafford Road and eastern Turnberry Road that the mature hedge and tree line along A34 Stafford Road is preserved, in particular when determining the location and designs of vehicular access. [ENDS]

Object

Representation ID: 14865

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Ann Devall

I totally object to the building of 600 new homes on the site of Yieldsfield Farm, Bloxwich. This land should continue to be used as a farm and not sold off for housing. Other Brown sites in the area should found if new housing is needed.

There is already too much traffic, pollution and noise in Bloxwich and building this estate would add to all this in a massive way. This would also impact on the lives of children in the area.

We must all fight this proposal to make sure this housing estate is never build and to protect our green belt land for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 15270

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Terence Lefevre

I am objecting to buidings on the following sites: -
Yieldsfields Farm, Bloxwich
York Bridge, Pelsall
Coronation Road / Mob Lane Aldridge Road North and Walsall Wood
My objections are as follows: -
1/ Building on these sites would eat into our remaining Greenbelt.
2/ Many people use the Greenbelt for recreation to enhance our wellbeing.
3/ In all three locations there is no infrastructure to support the number of houses suggested.
4/ Volume of traffic has already reached saturation point.

Object

Representation ID: 16015

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Cartwright

Walsall, Yieldfield Farm, Bloxwhich, Housing: -
This proposal could generate nearly 2,000 extra cars, adding to traffic on the A34, Stafford Road, The Turnberry and Lower Farm estates are already plagued by traffic using us as a rat runs/ cut thrus to avoid major junctions in Bloxwich. There is very little off road parking on the estates as the original garage blocks are in disrepair and not being let out by the authority for use. Working form home means all the roads are now effectively one lane as the roads are not designed for the size of modern vehicles and congestion on all the main roads is already a problem. Buses find it hard to negotiate junctions.

Comment

Representation ID: 16323

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Strategic Allocation Policy WSA.4. -WAH232 (GB1) Yieldsfield Farm (sometimes recorded as
Yieldfields farm), Stafford Road, Bloxwich.

This large allocation of 600 houses is likely to impact upon a known identified core habitat zone (Local Nature Recovery Mapping and Natural Capital Maps 2021). This represents potentially significant impacts on key local biodiversity rich sites such as Pelsall Common through likely increased recreational impacts. Natural England would be keen to explore mitigation measures here such as creating new biodiversity rich green open spaces such as a country park with heathland recreation therein to also be interlinked by biodiversity rich multiuser green infrastructure corridors.

Object

Representation ID: 16490

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Helen Redfern

I wish to express my concerns to the allocation of Yield field farm to be added to the Black Country plan.
Yield field farm plan entrance will be opposite the already dangerous A34 entrance to the Turnberry
Road est
Most months we have crashes at ghis junction. The A34 is not capable of taking the extra traffic off 2000 houses.
Every morning the traffic queues from Bloxwich high Street to Holly Lane Great Wyrley, if the motorway is full then the queues extend right to the top of Walsall road to the orbital islands.
Road pollution creates dust and fumes to the local area, we get a black film on our windows and cars. I do not believe this is the ideal area to build such a huge estate, and it will put added pressure on jobs and local facilities. We don't even have any public toilets in the area as it is!
Why should Bloxwich be merged with GREAT WYRLEY/NEWTOWN , so now there will be no division between staffordshire and Walsall . There are plenty of brown fill sites to build on these houses are not needed.
Please consider the health of existing local people we cant see a doctor dentist and the hospitals can not cope with the people in our area as it is.

Comment

Representation ID: 16814

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation

We welcome this policy, however that the following site allocations are likely to impact upon the effectiveness of policy ENV1 (1b,1c,1d, 3):

Please see 13 Sub-Areas and Site Allocations for further details of our concerns.

We would advise that the Plan should identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental significance.

Natural England welcome the creation and designation of new Local Nature Reserves as additional assets to the Local Nature Reserve suite currently in place, especially were they offer additional access to local people for recreation and education.




• WAH232 (GB1) Yieldsfield Farm (sometimes recorded as Yieldfields farm), Stafford Road, Bloxwich.
Impacts on Pelsall North Common Local Nature Reserve.

Object

Representation ID: 16834

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marie Garbett

I write to object to your use of green belt land throughout the Black Country to use for housing and other building, particularly areas in Bloxwich and Pelsall.
- Yieldsfield Farm - Bloxwich, Land at Mob Lane and Yorks Bridge Pelsall.
These areas of greenbelt are greatly valued as areas of beauty that add to residents quality of life and feelings of wellbeing.
Areas like this that have been given status as green belt should remain so. There will always be need for more housing but alternative areas need to be found otherwise all our green areas will be lost.
I believe building on these areas will negatively impact upon local residents wellbeing and quality of life and would ask you to consider my views, which are commonly held amongst the local population and stop plans for building on greenbelt land in the Black Country.

Object

Representation ID: 17610

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Jeremy Devall

I total object to all these propasals to build so many houses on green belt land.

I live not far from the proposed site at Yieldfield Farm in Blowich East and if this was to go ahead, it would total devastate the area. Boxwich is already built up enough, and if 600 more homes were to built, it would increase the already traffic problem we have, and also have a massive inpact enviromentally.

We need to fight to stop these houses ever being built, and to save our green belt land, before it's too late.

Object

Representation ID: 17679

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pat Dexter

I am totally against the use of the large swathes of farm land for housing development,
Why can't there be more smaller developments?
800 houses on Home Farm - by it's name - farm land
600 houses on Farm land
202 houses on the precious land along side the Arboretum - the only Jewel in Walsall's Crown, but with the way planning is going it will be totally surrounded by houses.
Keep the Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 17781

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Parks

I totally object to the building of 600 new homes on the site of Yieldsfield Farm, Bloxwich. This land should continue to be used as a farm and not sold off for housing. Other Brown sites in the area should found if new housing is needed.

There is already too much traffic, pollution and noise in Bloxwich and building this estate would add to all this in a massive way. This would also impact on the lives of children in the area.

We must all fight this proposal to make sure this housing estate is never build and to protect our green belt land for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 18459

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Sport England

WAH232 - (WSA 4) - Yieldsfield Farm, Stafford Road, Bloxwich - 978 dwellings

The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by a robust evidence base such as an up to date Sports Facilities Strategy, Playing Pitch Strategy or other relevant needs assessment. The Council are currently preparing a new Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy (PPOSS) to consider how to meet existing and future needs for playing pitches and other outdoor sports facilities. The PPOSS will scenario test the proposed major housing growth sites within the proposed plan and make recommendations for how best to meet the future needs generated by this population growth. These needs might be best met by either on-site provision of new pitches and ancillary facilities, off-site contributions to improve existing provision of pitches/ancillary facilities in the local area or a combination of both. Sport England are aware that there are several existing sports facilities locally that would potentially benefit from developer contributions in order to improve the existing provision to cater for the additional demand generated by these proposed developments. Sport England considers that the following proposed allocations are of sufficient size to justify suitable developer contributions towards sport to meet the needs of the respective developments. At Reg 19 stage, following the completion of the PPOSS, Sport England will make more detailed comments with reference to Sport England's Playing Pitch Calculator. The following proposed policy allocations should make specific reference to securing suitable developer contributions towards the provision of facilities for sport in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS: WAH232 - (WSA 4) - Yieldsfield Farm, Stafford Road, Bloxwich - 978 dwellings