No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 6268

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Ms Ellen Darlison

Representation Summary:

Largely think the plan is good, but Council has not followed its own principles in allocating land in south-west Balsall Common.

Full text:

I have just spent over an hour registering and endeavouring to fill out the incredibly cumbersome online form for the above only to find that next to none of it has saved. So, whilst I wanted to respond in the way suggested I am having to redo it via email. I did hear complaints about the form from others but thought it was due to their technical limitations - I realise now its due to SBCs limitations!

I now don't have as much time but I want to oppose in the strongest terms the above residential proposal. It seems to contradict many of the aims in your plan and looks like a dash for cash rather than a considered response to the boroughs housing needs!

It terms of health and well being the playing fields and the allotments are planned to be built on - in any studies these are key contributors to health and well being, not to mention developing community cohesion and actitiy for the young and the old.

In terms of sustainability the development is out or walking reach of shops and employment so will mean at least 150 extra cars - in a part of the village already congested. It is a highly visible site so wont add to the value or sense of place for those living here.

I know that there has been a environmental study undertaken meaning that the land at the most western part of the Frog Lane development wont be built on as it is ancient meadow land (that assessment has not been made public to my knowledge or indeed available to SBC). I am concerned that there will be contamination of the biodiversity of life on that land if the development were to go ahead.

There is ground water flooding on this site which will, if developed will run off into surrounding houses and farmland.

I could go on.

I think the plan is largely quite good - disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with world piece but you have not followed your own principles here - and you really should think again.