No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 5020

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Gemma Blanco

Representation Summary:

In relation to Site 2 and 3 Objection.

Unsuitable to build on Green Belt.
Brownfield sites are available or extend existing developments.
Development not large enough to solve housing shortage.
Recommend one large site instead.
One large development could provide shops, gym, community centre etc.

Full text:

Balsall Common - Frog Lane development proposal

Dear PSP and SMBC planning team,

I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.While I understand there is a need for additional housing in Solihull area, I strongly urge the SMBC to select a more suitable plot to Frog Lane and to consider the following issues;

* Frog Lane site is on green belt land and has been chosen in favour of brown field sites and extending existing developments. Green Belt should only be developed on in exceptional circumstances according to planning guidances
* The development proposals do not include the provision of infrastructure and would put increased pressure on school places, at both primary and secondary level;
o Balsall Common Primary has been pressurised to accommodate an additional 4th reception class for the last two years running and is already operating at full capacity
o As stated in the LA regulations introduced in 2015, Balsall Common Primary schools 'free space' is not sufficient to accommodate their current pupil numbers and will only be further impacted by these additional homes
* The Frog Lane and Windmill developments are on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and the village shops, increasing congestion around the primary and secondary school. There have been several incidences reported to the school in 2016/17 of children having near fatal accidents while walking to school. I strongly urge SMBC to visit these areas during peak times and to consider the safety/lives of children in their bid to fill their housing quota.
* The development proposals are on Green Field sites on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt.
* Frog lane is a small development - it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed schools, doctors)
* Frog lane proposes to include the development of the local recreational land owned by the council, and suggests this proposal has been put forward for commercial/ profiteering reasons over protection of green belt and local green spaces

Based on the comments above, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane and Windmill Lane that will benefit both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents and to consider ;
* One large development with vital infrastructure needed to accommodate the expansion included (shops, gym, community centre etc) funded by the developers
* Develop a site that is near to the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Consider alternative brownfield sites available/long term strategy planning. Development plans on greenbelt are negatively impacting the countryside long term and once gone the damage can not be reserved

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.

Best regards