As the consultation period for the Balsall Common NDP has now begun, I write with some objections to the proposed development in Frog Lane.

1) My first concern is the narrowness of this lane. In the NPD document the comment states that "there may be a need to widen this lane". As one who walks the length of this lane in both directions regularly, it is my objective opinion there is no "may" about it--as currently there is no way that two vehicles can pass without using the grass verges! Not only do pedestrians use the lane, but also many cyclists and dog-walkers. Any development on this site would DEFINITELY require a substantial increase in road width to take two vehicles at a time.
2) From the plan, it would now appear to include the whole of the playing field being used. I cannot recall that this was mooted or shown in the original plan nor at the exhibition held in St Peter's church hall. Why has this now been added in without any prior public consultation and against Government guidelines?
3) This proposed development is more than 1.5 miles from local shops and amenities which again appears to be outside Government planning guidelines.
4) Although designated as a 30 MPH restricted road, the relatively straight stretch from the junction of Kemps Green Road/Balsall Street East (past the entrance to Frog Lane) regularly sees motorists well exceeding this statutory limit and thus making for potential RTA conditions as increased traffic volumes would be requiring ingress/exit to and from the junction of Frog Lane/Balsall Street East.

For all these reasons, plus the fact that it is already generally recognised that the southern side of Balsall Common is already more congested, leads me to write this letter of objection to the proposed large development. Why push the village 'footprint' further south and east when there are more suitable brown field sites within the existing 'footprint' of Balsall Common?