I write after attending the Balsall Parish Council meeting last week. At that meeting many pieces of information were given by local residents regarding issues around the proposed local development plan and particularly the site at Frog Lane.

First we discover that it is proposed, at the Frog Lane site, to take the whole of the area, including the playing fields and allotments, out of the green belt with the suggestion that Frog Lane is a defensible boundary. I was told at the exhibition last August that the playing fields and allotments were not included and was assured, when I asked, that Frog Lane would not be widened/upgraded. In the plan now proposed it states the possible widening/upgrade of Frog Lane and has the playing fields and allotments included in the hatched area. The playing fields are a well used amenity for sports by the schools, other clubs and the general public. There are also many dog walkers making use of the fields. The Church has also used the fields for its youth groups as do the local brownies and guides. Both Chruch and brownie/guides meet regularly in premises next to the fields. Whilst we were told that the fields were not going to be developed I suspect that once they come out of greenbelt there will be pressure to develop them as it would be easy pickings. I also think that it is no co-incident that the day the proposals were published I receive an offer to purchase my house which boarders onto the playing fields. I also strongly believe that a widened/upgraded Frog Lane is no more a defensible boundary than the existing greenbelt boundary. For these reasons alone I make strong objection to the proposal.

Second we learn that the Jaguar/Land Rover site at the end of Holly Lane/Beres Lane will employ up to 3000 people. This is something that has no mention in the proposed local plan. If we assume that even a third of those will come from north of the site then that will mean a minimum of 1000 vehicle movements twice a day using an already overloaded road network through Balsall Common viz. Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane, Balsall Street and Kennilworth Road. All of this is before adding the potential of 300 vehicle movements twice a day from the Frog Lane development alone. We learnt that there is evidence that a majority of traffic movements to employment from the surrounding area are northwards thus building further housing on the south side of Balsall Common will increase further the traffic flows through the village which has already been identified as having some of the busiest roads in the borough of Solihull.

Thirdly it was noted that national planning guidelines were being ignored by SMBC that is:- a. the preference to use brownfield sites where possible, b. place new housing close to amenities such as doctors surgeries, shops, frequent public transport. There are brownfield sites closer to the amenities mentioned to the north of Balsall Common that could be used but are not included in the proposals. I therefore find it difficult to justify using greenbelt land in preference to the brownfield sites.

The proposals as they stand make no condition on development that infrastructure should be improved it is only 'suggested'.
First, on my calculations if Balsall Common were to receive over 1000 new houses that would entail about 50 school pupils per school year. This would mean the necessity of at least another 2 form entry primary school. The current primary school is already 4 form entry and is located on the south of the village. The secondary school site (also on the south side of the village) would struggle to find space to expand to take the extra pupils.
Second, we already have an inadequate congested commercial centre in Balsall Common with restricted parking. To increase the population without putting in plans to improve the centre substantially appears to be a grave mistake.
Third, there is no assurance that public transport is to be improved eg more frequent services and more parking at the rail station.
Fourthly there is no condition that any improvement/benefits for the community to come from the developments will be in place before, or even concurrent with any construction

I would also like to question whether there has been any consideration of the effect of the HS2 construction will have on the whole area around Balsall Common. With this construction going on at the same time as the proposals in the plan it will mean the current residents living effectively in a building site for 15 years with all the construction noise and traffic that will go with it.

I urgently appeal for a careful reconsideration of the proposals put forward for Balsall Common. I understand that there is a need for more housing and that Balsall Common should take some of these, however given the history of expansion over the past 30 years (four large housing estates and numerous infill and back garden development) with little change to the infrastructure it must be considered that Balsall Common is at saturation point without major public infrastructure work.

Peter Thomas
(Vicar St Peter's Balsall Common)