I am very concerned about the inclusion of the Playing Fields in the Frog Lane development plan. There are several issues that I am concerned about.
1. Health related concerns: my husband (Professor Jeremy Dale) has written separately on this issue expressing concerns about the public health consequences of a loss of the playing fields. I agree with everything stated in that email, and so won't repeat the issues here except to emphasise their importance as a local resource for residents living in this part of Balsall Common.
2. I am very concerned about any development that adds to the traffic congestion around the Holly Lane, Alder Lane, Balsall St East, Gypsy Lane junction. I have previously brought to the attention of SMBC concerns about the number of accidents that occur at this junction, and that the data that the SMBC reports on its website is inaccurate. There are at least 3 or 4 accidents a year that we (and our neighbours) attend to, and while some are minor, support from the emergency services is often needed. Despite the change in speed limits and signage, it is only a matter of time before a child gets very seriously injured given the severe congestion during school drop off and collection times. Anything that increases the traffic flow at this junction is likely to increase the risk of accidents and/or serious injury and fatality.
3. I should like to know why the proposal to build on the playing fields was not included as an option at the consultation meeting in August. Please could this be explained. Furthermore, no detail has yet been provided for what the planned development on the playing fields will comprise. Without this information, how can we make an informed comment?
4. Finally, I should like to understand the justification for why SMBC is proposing the Frog Lane development, given that it scored below other local sites and other brown field sites in Solihull that are served by much better access and local amenities. Dorridge, for example, scores very highly on accessibility and other assessments and out of 32 potential sites offered had none included in the proposal.

I am writing to express my views on the proposed development in Balsall Common ( BC)I understand the need for more housing, I work with homeless teenagers. I also understand that when large developments are being proposed the infrastructure of the area needs to be considered, schools, access, health,etc. I am aware the potential building sites across Solihull have been weighted.

I am therefore confused as to why SMBC have chosen Frog Lane for development in BC given its lower scoring in relation to other sites around the borough.

Is there any awareness in SMBC as to the traffic congestion twice daily around the Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Alder Lane and Gypsy Lane junction? This junction is an accident hotspot and has been for the last 19 years. I have witnessed and helped casualties from these accidents on many occasions. I have voiced my concerns to SMBC in the past regarding this issue.

May I suggest SMBC visit this junction during school opening and closing times to witness the chaos. This area is a danger to the pedestrians and vehicle users at these times . Surely potential development sites need such matters to be considered. Please inform me of how this traffic/ accident hotspot is weighted in comparison with other sites?

Several potential sites (some partially brownfield) were identified to the north of the village, and they all scored more highly than Frog Lane in terms accessibility, so why were they excluded? As a matter of urgency, we ask you to consider them now.

Does the proposed development of Frog Lane still include the playing fields?

I am interested to hear where the children of primary school age will be accessing their schooling given that BC Primary School tends to run at full capacity most years ( I was a school governor in the past) following the proposed development in BC.

I look forward to your response.