No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 178

Received: 30/12/2016

Respondent: Antony Truman

Representation Summary:

Frog Lane is a green field site. Why it has been preferred to other available brown field sites?
The site is 1.5 miles from local amenities. How does it comply with government planning guidelines?
The playing fields are a valuable community amenity and should be preserved. Why is SMBC ignoring these guidelines and why were they added?
There is significant congestion in this part of the village. What is the justification for further development in this area, which will only worsen the levels of congestion
On what grounds were alternative available brown field sites rejected?

Full text:

There is a clear threat from the proposed residential development at Frog Lane, Balsall Common and that means please note my formal objection to the proposed development.

Also, please might you confirm, as Frog Lane is a green field site, why it has been preferred to other available brown field sites, and also confirm:

1. How the proposed development, which is 1.5 miles from local amenities, complies with government planning guidelines
2. As you know the playing fields are a valuable community amenity and resource and government guidelines stipulate that such resources should be preserved at all costs. So, please might you confirm on what grounds SMBC is ignoring these guidelines
3. On what grounds the playing fields were added at a very late stage in the consultation process, without consultation
4. SMBC Connected Strategy / Transport Strategy acknowledges the significant levels of congestion in this part of the village. So, please might you confirm the justification for further development in this area, which will only worsen the levels of congestion
5. On what grounds were alternative available brown field sites rejected