RE: SMBC's proposed developments in Balsall Common.

I am writing to you in response to SMBC's Draft Local Plan and the affect it will have in the village of Balsall Common. My predominant concern is with the proposed development in Frog Lane and would propose that serious consideration be given to other PDL sites existing within the area and other areas in the borough, such as Dorridge as mentioned in point 8) of this correspondence.

1) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common when there are 14 PDL sites available in the village, suggests that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the green belt HAS NOT been demonstrated by SMBC.

2) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. (SMBC's recent confirmation that the A452 is the most congested road in the borough at certain times. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing need in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

3) Balsall Common is a settlement with very limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. (SMBC's own statistics state 80% commuter rate of Balsall Common residents). Any significant expansion will add unnecessarily to the road network as well as adding to the carbon footprint created by the additional traffic flow.

4) In addition to the above point 3), the 3,000 proposed jobs recently announced at the new JLR site at Honiley, although the site being in Warwickshire, SMBC will have the bulk of the traffic issues, with massively increased traffic flows, morning and late afternoon. This will add considerably to both A452 and that Holly Lane will become a "rat run", for the employees.

5) The proposed phasing of Balsall Common developments to take place over the next 15 years, at the same time as HS2, will add considerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both
Infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current primary School provision is wholly inadequate and unsustainable. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth".

As stated above, the existing facilities in Balsall Common are already inadequate for the size of the existing settlement. During any planned future development, the infrastructure HAS to be "put in place", before any further housing development is allowed. Your existing proposed plan has the Primary School to be developed in the third phase 10-15 years, this is "totally irresponsible of SMBC planners".

6) The proposed development of Frog Lane site, being in the south west of Balsall Common, will add to the existing congestion hotspot on Balsall Street East caused by the existing traffic congestion (mainly at school times) by commuter traffic travelling from/to Coventry/ Solihull, these being the main local employment centres.

7) I do not understand the logic of SMBC planners with regard to the proposed Frog Lane development, your draft document stated that the cottage and allotments are "protected" from any development, but the current school playing fields are not covered by this statement of intent. Elsewhere within SMBC's local plan document there is emphasis made of the importance of recreational facilities, so why is this omitted, in this instance? If SMBC planners are to be trusted, why this "double standard"?

8) Frog Lane site must score poorly in relation to all accessibility critieria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such, most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be made by car, adding to the existing congestion and very poor parking facilities.

9) As a general note, it is noticeable that Dorridge, which has a far superior railway station facility along with a more "open plan and spacious shopping centre, with plentiful car parking", appears to have no planned housing development in SMBC's proposed local plan. The cynic in me must ask the question of your council, "Who are the senior SMBC councillors living in this area?" who have protected it in the plan and should have "declared an interest", as Dorridge meets most of the SMBC's search criteria for future development.