I am writing to you regarding the recent news of the proposed developments in Balsall common and the potential 1100 homes you are planning on enforcing on Balsall Common village. In particular I would like to confirm how Solihull Council has chosen the 3 proposed sites - out of a potential 40 - in particular the Frog Lane development.
The Frog Lane site was seen as an unlikely option when all 40 sites were initially submitted due to the issues and limitations related to the proposal. I was therefore surprised to hear the Frog Lane site has been selected and would like to request that Solihull Council reconsiders the selection based on the following issues related to the site:
* The Frog Lane is green belt land and has been selected over more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why?
* The Frog Lane development is a Green Field site on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane. I've spoken to several people living around Frog Lane who have previously had planning permissions for building work rejected due to Green Belt restrictions that will be requesting reviews of these decisions if the council approves the Frog Lane development. This will be in addition to developers using Frog Lane as the precedent when putting Solihull Council under pressure to approve future plans on the Green Belt in the area surrounding Balsall Common
* Balsall Street East and the roads surrounding the Balsall Common schools - adjacent to the Frog Lane development - are already severely congested (with increased related pollution) at school drop off and pick up time. The Frog Lane development would no doubt have access via Balsall Street East and the immediate area so adding up to another 300 cars into this congestion every day will only increase this problem. I would suggest you or one of your team visits Balsall Street East at around 8.40am on a weekday morning to see the extent of the issue. I would be happy to send you a video of it, if a visit is not possible
* The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less irreversible impact on the surrounding countryside.
* The Frog Lane site is a considerable distance from the village amenities and in particular the train station which will encourage people to drive more and increase the congestion and pollution problems in the village - and goes against government planning guidelines on the subject
* On a more general point proposing 1100 homes for the Balsall Common village - at least a 30% increase on the current population - will have a fundamental and irreversible impact on the village and change the way we live. Most of us chose to live in Balsall Common due to it's village status and adding 1100 homes will not only add unprecedented pressure on an already creaking infrastructure but have a negative impact on the current population of the village - without them having any say. 1100 homes is simply too much for the village and a short term move by Solihull Council to push the housing shortage issue onto an easy target such as Balsall Common
The selection of the Frog Lane site by Solihull Council is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that the Consultants they have used to submit their plans said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal. Please can you confirm the specific reasons why you have gone against all of this logic to select the Frog Lane site? I would urge you to consider a more suitable option.

Further email 13/2/2017:
Further to the instructions given by SMBC at the planning consultation meeting at Balsall Common library on the 7th January, I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.
As per my discussion with Gary Palmer on the 7th January there seems to be no clear reason why SMBC has selected the Frog Lane site other than to benefit directly from the Recreational Fields conversion to brownfield site and subsequent sale for development. The issues with The Frog Lane site are numerous - as listed below - and I would like to take this opportunity to suggest suitable alternatives that I would urge SMBC to consider
Issues with Frog Lane Development:
* The Frog Lane site is green belt land on the very edge of the village and has been selected over far more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why?
* It is too small a development - at only 150 homes it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed doctors, 4th class intake at school etc)
* The proposal comes with zero infrastructure additions so will only add to the severe congestion we already experience in the South of the village - only the developers will benefit and none of the existing residents
* The development is on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and shops forcing the potential residents to drive everywhere, further increasing congestion
* The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less impact on the surrounding countryside
* The Frog Lane development is a Green Field site on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane.
* The selection of the Frog Lane site by SMBC is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that their planning Consultants said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal.
Based on the above issues it seems to any reasonable person that the Frog Lane site is clearly unsuitable for development. Why have you selected it from more than 40 planning sites in the village - in particular alternative brownfield sites - when there are so many challenges with the site? It seems the only reason SMBC would select it is to profit directly from the conversion of the playing fields to brownfield status which would allow you to sell the site for a huge profit in the short to mid term. This would be a scandal and something we would rigorously challenge as residents should you proceed with the Frog Lane development

Alternative Proposal
I understand there is a need for additional housing in all areas of the countryside and that we as a community need to play our part. However, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane that benefits both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents, based on the following criteria:

* Select one large development with infrastructure included by the developers instead of 3 small sites and ideally select a brownfield or semi brownfield site (of which there are several in the village)
* Make the developers pay for the vital infrastructure the village will need to accommodate the expansion - with a large enough proposal the developers will pay for the infrastructure we need (shops, gym, community centre etc)
* Pick a site near the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Leave greenbelt sites alone when there are alternative brownfield sites available as once you approve any plans on greenbelt you are negatively impacting the countryside forever and can't be reversed in our lifetimes
The selection of a single large site based on the criteria above will keep SMBC and the Balsall Common residents happy and satisfy the need for additional housing whilst minimising the negative impact on the existing residents of the village.

I urge you to reconsider the Frog Lane and Windmill lane proposals on this basis.