02 Balsall Common - Frog Lane

I strongly object to the proposed loss of the playing fields located in the Frog Lane site, Balsall Common. Playing fields are a rare and precious facility that should be preserved for the community. There are plenty of alternative locations to build new houses without the need to build on this facility. The playing fields were not part of the original consultation when this location was originally proposed, they appear to have been added as an after thought.

see attached letter

I am very concerned to learn that once again Solihull BC is exploring the possibility of developing green field space in Balsall Common to provide additional residential accommodation for the borough.
As I am sure you are aware, the National Planning Policy Framework for England provides very clear guidance on its website: "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period."
Our Green Belt was established to maintain the division between our two great regional cities, Birmingham and Coventry. I cannot see that any "exceptional circumstances" exist that now necessitate the development of Green Belt when there remain many brown field sites within the borough which could be developed.
I am particularly disappointed that consideration is being given to the development of Frog Lane. A survey of usage would no doubt show that this provides a valuable public amenity providing all weather exercise facilities for a large number of dog owners, families and recreational cyclists. It provides ready access to the beautiful surrounding countryside that is essential for the wellbeing of the local community. Furthermore the plans propose development of Holly Lane Playing Fields, contrary to planning guidance that specifies that "local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity". These should be protected at all costs. The developments are completely inappropriate.
I would ask you to reconsider all development plans for Balsall Common in view of its position within the Green Belt.

My Objections to the development in Frog Lane.
As a resident of 60 Balsall Street East I have first hand experience of the traffic congestion, which at times has led to dangerous driving conditions due to the volume of traffic and causing people to park with total disregard for anyone's safety. I have lived here for 11 years and it only gets worse with every development and added traffic in the village. SMBC acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village, so why propose another development here ? Particularly given that brown field sites to the north were identified and appeared in the original shortlist of potential sites. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE !!!
The playing fields are a valuable public amenity, well used by local football teams and dog walkers. Government guidelines stipulate that they should be preserved and protected at all cost. Why is SMBC ignoring these guidelines ? THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE !!!
Why was the playing field added at such a late stage without any public consultation or knowledge?

FROG LANE IS A GREEN FIELD SITE. WHY HAS IT BEENPREFERRED TO OTHER AVAILABLE BROWN FIELD SITES ?

This proposed development is 1.5 miles from local amenities, rendering it unsustainable according to Government planning guidelines.

I have information on the points allocated to each individual site and Frog Lane is very low compared with other sites. Why have these sites not been included, ie Grange Farm, 3 sites in Wootton Green Lane and over 100 sites across the borough which have not been included for development ?

WHAT DOES SMBC INTEND ON DOING ABOUT SCHOOLING, DOCTORS, AND PARKING IN THE VILLAGE THIS IS A MAIN CONCERN AS THEY ARE ALL ALREADY OVERSUBSCRIBED

With reference to my recent concerns, currently it takes me 23 minutes to get from my house to the traffic lights on the kenilworth road ( under a mile )!!! In the morning. I understand that development has to take place but really in the worst traffic area in the village?!!!!
If the development goes ahead I will be forced to sell my property and I assume smbc will be compensating for loss of value on my property from the development ?

As the consultation period for the Balsall Common NDP has now begun, I write with some objections to the proposed development in Frog Lane.

1) My first concern is the narrowness of this lane. In the NPD document the comment states that "there may be a need to widen this lane". As one who walks the length of this lane in both directions regularly, it is my objective opinion there is no "may" about it--as currently there is no way that two vehicles can pass without using the grass verges! Not only do pedestrians use the lane, but also many cyclists and dog-walkers. Any development on this site would DEFINITELY require a substantial increase in road width to take two vehicles at a time.
2) From the plan, it would now appear to include the whole of the playing field being used. I cannot recall that this was mooted or shown in the original plan nor at the exhibition held in St Peter's church hall. Why has this now been added in without any prior public consultation and against Government guidelines?
3) This proposed development is more than 1.5 miles from local shops and amenities which again appears to be outside Government planning guidelines.
4) Although designated as a 30 MPH restricted road, the relatively straight stretch from the junction of Kemps Green Road/Balsall Street East (past the entrance to Frog Lane) regularly sees motorists well exceeding this statutory limit and thus making for potential RTA conditions as increased traffic volumes would be requiring ingress/exit to and from the junction of Frog Lane/Balsall Street East.

For all these reasons, plus the fact that it is already generally recognised that the southern side of Balsall Common is already more congested, leads me to write this letter of objection to the proposed large development. Why push the village 'footprint' further south and east when there are more suitable brown field sites within the existing 'footprint' of Balsall Common?

Why oh why has it been decided by Solihull Council to build yet more houses than first mooted, indeed, right up to Holly Lane.
Have you no idea what these fields mean to children and adults alike who presently walk and play there, pick black currants there in Autumn, exercise their dogs, and have picnics with little children, not to mention the Mighty Oaks in all their splendour?
The fields are used regularly by the Heart of England School for long distant running and football.
Please do not build on our countryside.
We write in the hope that you may stop the proposed new development above.

Living in the above road, and no longer working, we see the mayhem caused by heavy traffic at school times. Indeed, those parents having to drive their children to school seem to abandon their cars just anywhere for the lack of space. It is fortunate there has not yet been an accident.

Assuming most of the homes to be built will each have 1plus child who will walk to school - their route to school is by pavement which could spill over onto the road where DANGER LIES.

Please think again for the children's sake.

If not for the above alone .. think what you are destroying - Greenbelt Land enjoyed by all - picnicking in summer - footballing in the Autumn and Spring - open spaces for dog walkers etc.

There must be other places for you to use that will not destroy the above and so that our children can run free in safety

We write with regard to the proposed housing development on 'FROG LANE' Balsall Common.
We are strongly against said development due to the following points:

1. Frog Lane is used by our family everyday to walk our dog. We enter the playing field from the Frog Lane entrance and meet other regular dog walkers everyday. If this site is used for housing, where do you propose we go? There are no other green spaces close-by that we can use for this purpose. On the weekends we walk around the local football teams training or playing matches, what will happen to these teams?

2. Congestion- I would recommend that someone from Solihull council come and try to get down Balsall Street East at school drop off and pick up! Cars are parked on both sides of the road from Welby Gate right through to Alder Lane and if we want to leave our house, we have to time it so that it doesn't coincide with this time. Once the new housing development on Kenilworth Road are all sold this will increase school numbers again considerably and cause more parking problems. To add to this by having a further housing development in Frog Lane, does not make any sense whatsoever and will cause extensive congestion as well as increased pollution.

3. Amenities - Balsall Common is a village. The amenities we have are built to cope with a village population. From the local schools to the facilities for parking at the local shops, we will not be able to cope with this increase in population.

Lastly.....this is a GREEN Field site! Why is this even being considered! It is our understanding that there are other BROWN Field sites that were identified originally, Frog Lane was never ever highlighted as a possibility! Are we not supposed to be protecting our countryside!!

see attached letter

We strongly object to the proposals to develop land in Frog Lane and Holly Lane Playing Fields in Balsall Common.
Particularly Holly Lane playing fields which has been added to the list at the last minute with no consultation. This latter part is underhand and sneaky!!!!

Frog Lane is a greenfield site. Why has it been earmarked in preference to available brown field sites in the area ?? It is almost two miles from local amenities and supposed to be unsustainable according to Government planning guidelines.

According to SMBC's latest strategy publication the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village so why are you proposing yet another development here ???

The playing fields are a valuable public amenity.Local football teams use it regularly. Dog walkers also use it regularly Government guidelines stipulate that these type of amenities should be preserved at all costs. Why is SMBC ignoring these guidelines????

There is more than sufficient stealing of greenbelt land going on in this area without any thought being given to public services. Schools are full. Doctors surgeries are full. Lack of decent shopping amenities and parking is a nightmare.

If you have to build then please do it on brownfield sites and do not rob us of what little green areas we have left.

I/We wish to object to the above development for the following reasons:

1. Frog Lane is a Green Field site. Why has it been preferred to other available Brown Field sites?

2. Why was the playing field added at such a late stage without any public consultation or knowledge?

3. Solihull Connected (SMBC's latest transport strategy publication) acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village, so why propose another development here? Particularly given that Brown Field sites to the north were identified and appeared in the original shortlist of potential sites. It does not make sense!

4. The playing fields are a valuable public amenity, well used by local football teams, families and dog walkers. Government guidelines stipulate that they should be preserved and protected at all costs. Why is SMBC ignoring these guidelines?

see attached letter

I am writing to express my opposition to the recent proposed development in Frog Lane, Balsall Common and the adjacent playing fields. I have been resident in Frog Lane for just two years now having completed a self build property known as Foxglove Cottage in July 2014.

My objections are based on the following factors as follows:

* The proposed development does not meet Government planning guidelines in many respects,being 1.5 miles from local amenities, building on the playing fields -a public amenity and showing preference to a green belt site over more accessible Brown Field sites in the village.Why is SMBC ignoring these guidelines?
* My reason for choosing a building plot in Frog Lane was because it was in the green belt and offered a unique site in a lane which has probably not changed much in centuries. Why has a green belt site been favoured rather than the Brown Field sites to the north of the village where the transport and roads are better? Frog Lane is single track in places and, consequently, during the build of my single house this caused real access problems for the neighbours and road users in general being closed and dug up four times over the last three years by the utility companies The proposed large housing development would create chaos and not be practical without major widening to the lane. Is this feasible as there are listed buildings on either side of the road at its narrowest point?
* Widening would thus destroy its character and the amenity value to the local community as Frog Lane is used recreationally by horse riders,cyclists from far afield, local walkers, parents and their children on the way to the playing fields. Why has the playing field been added at such a late stage? I was told by the developer who has secured the land behind the houses in Balsall St East (at the exhibition regarding the plans in St Peter's Hall in September ) that Frog lane would not be affected and now this has all changed. Why?
* On an environmental note,the hedgerows are full of blackberries and cobnuts in the autumn and locals pick these with their children. This habitat will be all destroyed if the lane has to be widened.The lane and surrounding fields are full of wild life- rabbits, badgers, moles, foxes and stoats plus many species of birds and all will be displaced by the proposed urbanisation.
I would urge you to give this planning proposal much more consideration as it will be detrimental for the village as a whole and look forward to your early response.

see attached letter

see attached letter

I wish to register my opposition to the above proposed development. Not only is Frog Lane in the green belt, it offers a valuable well used public amenity by junior football teams, walkers and families. It is in the south of the borough which is already a very congested area without the appropriate infrastructure to support further housing. There are brown field sites which offer increased opportunity for development. Why have government guide lines been ignored and no consultation has taken place?

I hope these comments together with others of a similar nature will be favourably considered.

We are writing in response to the advertised "Draft Local Plan Review Consultation (Dec 2016) and the proposal to construct 150 new houses on the land adjoining Holly Lane and Frog Lane in Balsall Common.
After reviewing the Draft Local Plan, the Town and Country Planning Act and the Planning Practice Guidelines we have several issues that we feel have not and currently are not being considered in the proposed development of the land.
1. Frog Lane is a Greenfield site and there are a considerable number of Brownfield locations around Balsall Common which had a better score for development within the plan. Why have these not been considered ?
2. It is understood that the land currently being used as a playing field is actually owned by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) and leased to the Heart of England School and is now to be sold off without even discussing this with the School. This, at best raises suspicions as to SMBC's position and honesty with the public over the development and in the worst case actually appears to be a covert / surreptitious action to development without full consultation.
3. In the consultation held in November 2016 at St Peter's Church in Balsall Street East there was only a presentation for some 100 or so dwellings and these were not going to encroach upon the current land being used as playing fields. As of the end of November 2016 beginning of December 2016 the plan has been amended to include the land being used as playing fields and a significant increase in the number of proposed dwellings to be developed.
4. The current fields, whilst being owned by SMBC are a valuable public amenity, well used by local football teams, families and dog walkers whilst all other public amenities are located on the other side of the village. Government guidelines stipulate that they should be preserved and protected at all costs. We would have thought that this was of even greater importance in the current times of increasing obesity and health issues amongst people.
5. Solihull Connected (SMBC's latest transport strategy publication) acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village with Balsall Street East (B4101) being a main thoroughfare between Knowle and Coventry. The addition of further traffic to this route (potentially 150 cars minimum from 150 houses) raises the risk of a road traffic accident or indeed a fatality (perhaps a young child on the way to school !) to a significant level.
6. The current proposed development is approximately 1.5 miles from the centre of the village, Doctors, shops, railway, etc., which, according to Government planning guidelines renders it unsustainable and appears to have received very little consideration in the decision process.

Whilst we appreciate that the local council has a responsibility to build new housing within its boundaries, it is also incumbent upon them to ensure that this requirement is fulfilled with due respect to the planning guidelines, sustainability studies, green belt requirements, etc.,.
The report therein identifies a shortlist of potential sites to the North of Balsall Common under growth option G which are eminently more suitable than Frog Lane / Holly Lane.
For example, Barratt's Farm (as identified on Page 144 under in Appendix C, Schedule of allocated Housing sites), a 57 hectare site with potential for 800 dwellings.
These sites offer the potential to develop a significant number of dwellings (including affordable housing) and infrastructure / amenities through the implementation of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Sections 203 and 204.
In the context of the above it is important to note that there are more constraints to development of the Frog Lane site and it would appear to have a poorer score for accessibility to the town centre so one can only assume that the primary objection to Barratt's Farm is the greater infrastructure / amenities development required for the increased number of the population and therefore schedule and costs.
It also noticeable that there is no provision within the plan for development within the confines of Dorridge, which has superior access to shopping facilities, amenities and schools whilst maintaining direct access to London and Birmingham.
In summation, whilst the "Draft Local Plan contains lots of references to report and studies it singularly fails to provide solid justification for the selection of the Frog Lane site above others. Development for developments sake simply to meet government targets is not the way forward for local communities and we, as residents who will be severely impacted, deserve an objective assessment, consultation and a response that answers the many questions posed.

see attached letter

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.

I am writing to express our concerns about the proposed Frog Lane development, and in particular the proposal to build on the recreation ground.

The recreation ground is an important amenity for residents living in this part of the village, providing space for individuals and families to play and participate in physical activity and sports (such as jogging, football, frisbee, walking, dog walking, relaxation, picnicking and so on). In numerous ways, it enhances the quality of life of the village and we strongly feel that this should not only be preserved - particular in the face of the proposed growth in the village population - but greater use of the recreation ground should be encouraged. Good quality facilities provide children with a much-need place to go out and play, which is fundamental to their development, and these should be close to where they live in order to become part of their everyday childhood experience.

Loss of this Green Belt space will significantly reduce local residents' opportunities to maintain physical fitness. As healthcare professionals (I am a professor of general practice and my wife is a family nurse) we are very concerned that the public health implications of losing this important space should be fully considered, particularly in the face of the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and mental health problems which face our village. We need to be encouraging our young people to see open air recreation space as an important part of everyday life, and to be encouraging all ages to make use of it in order to maintain their health. Convenient access to outdoor space is vital if we want to give
everyone the chance to exercise to improve or maintain their health, and this will become ever more important as the population of Balsall Common grows. I believe this important requirement is recognised in SMBC's strategy for the preservation of playing fields.

I should be grateful if the Parish Council could enquire from SMBC about why this proposal has been made given that it is contrary to its Public Health strategy, strategy for playing fields, and Sport England's guidance on maintaining recreation grounds. It would be helpful if we could see minutes of any SMBC meetings, or any reports that specifically address these issues in order that we can be confident that they have been appropriately considered.

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)

see attached letter

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to this above development. I realise that you have already received many letters listing the very real concerns of local residents and I do not propose to go through them again in detail but list below the salient facts:
- the south of Balsall Common is the most highly congested in terms of traffic (see Solihull Connected)
- accessibility: does not meet the Council's own criteria
- brownfield sites were identified to the north of the village but were not considered - why in view of point one - traffic congestion
- heritage: Frog Lane is one of the last surviving historic lanes in the village, dating back over 300 years. There is a clear duty to protect it and its wide variety of wildlife.
- Balsall Street East continuing into Balsall Street is the clearly defined defensible boundary and should remain so. This is abundantly clear when looking at a local map.
I accept totally that there has to be more housing across the Borough of Solihull but it hardly seems fair and just that Balsall Common is faced with 1,100 plus when our neighbours in Dorridge have seemingly escaped scot free! Especially when 32 site proposals were put forward and not even one chosen - how can this be explained? Particularly, bearing in mind that in terms of accessibility, Dorridge scores far more highly than Balsall Common.
It must be remembered that Balsall Common (unlike Dorridge) will bear the brunt of the massive HS2 construction project when that commences in a couple of years time - which would just about coincide with this development and the others allocated in Balsall Common, if given the go ahead. How can this be contemplated? Does the quality of life of Balsall Common residents mean so little - how can you ride rough shod and impose this on them?
My final point concerns the recent revelation that the JLR customisation site at nearby Honiley, is set to employ approximately 3,000 personnel, many of whom will utilise the already over congested south of the village to get to and from their place of work, possibly at peak rush hours coinciding with the numerous coaches and cars dropping off students at Heart of England School and a similar picture just round the corner at Balsall Common Primary School. This is a recipe for disaster. I invite you to come along and see for yourself the absolute traffic chaos every morning and afternoon at school drop off and pick up times - it is just a matter of time before there is a serious accident, indeed there was a minor incident at the Holly Lane crossroads a couple of weeks ago.
Cllr Ian Courts, the cabinet member responsible for managed growth said at the start of this period of consultation: " ....this is why the proposals at this stage are not fixed and why we are so keen for people's views." (Solihull Observer, 1st December 2016.) Well, I think you are in no doubt about people's views so, in this spirit, I would ask that you give the contents of this letter and the many others you have received objecting to this development, serious consideration and I expect nothing less than a totally honest and fair reply addressing all the points raised. I have every faith that you will do that and, based on all the evidence and facts provided, the only conclusion you can reach is that this development in Frog Lane is a complete nonsense and must be withdrawn from the draft local plan immediately.

see attached letter

I wish to object to the above development on the following grounds:-

1. The playing fields were not on the plan I saw back in August at St Peters church, and therefore has no public consultation or knowledge.
2. The playing fields are a very valuable asset to this side of Balsall Common, which is used regularly by Football teams, families and dog walkers. There is no other safe public area within a reasonable distance from Balsall Street East and Holly Lane for recreational walking.
3. Why move the green belt line to Frog Lane? surely the line of Balsall Street, Balsall Street East is perfectly good enough!
4. Why build so far away from local amenities? it is nearly 2 miles to the doctors surgery, and 1.5 miles to the centre of Balsall Common. There is no public transport to the doctors surgery.
5.Why use green belt? there are already brown field sites identified by Solihull Council.
6. Infrastructure. We have a new health centre, but it is almost impossible to get a doctors appointment within a week, unless you turn up at sick parade in the morning or 2.00p.m.! Will there be more doctors? will we get more services? this must be part of the plan. Schools although this development is fairly close to the primary and secondary schools - they are full! Are more schools part of the plan?
7. Transport. I believe that Solihull Councils latest transport strategy document suggests that this part of Balsall Common is the most congested, surely it would make more sense to build where it is less congested?

I would be most grateful if you would take my objections into consideration.

I should like to express my disappointment that Solihull Council is even considering giving planning permission for the building of new houses on the playing fields at Holly Lane and Frog Lane corner in Balsall Common. These playing fields are used by many groups within Balsall Common, not least the Sunday league football teams, the Scouts and the local Nursery, etc., as well as many people out for a walk or run, with and without dogs. There are few places where young people go for outdoor activities within Balsall Common. The obvious result of removing this facility would be kids roaming the streets and fouled pavements from dogs, to say nothing of an even greater obesity problem. Furthermore, Frog Lane is one of the few remaining, untouched rural lanes in existence anywhere in the country, without Solihull planning to ruin it. Why, indeed are all of your proposed sites within the green belt? Surely there are brownfield sites within the Borough.

It is bad enough that Solihull is even considering expanding Balsall Common to such a degree (more than 25% of the proposed new houses for Solihull), without ruining the remaining facilities. Have we not had enough expansion over the past 20 years? Did you not even consider the feedback you received recently. Mind you, even that was a farce, with the questions being loaded on an assumption of the expansion being a given. I can only assume that Balsall Common is one of the furthest points from the centre of Solihull, yet still within the Borough boundary and so is considered to be the dumping ground for the Council. Oh, of course it is!

I should like you to consider this as an official complaint and a request to reconsider using Balsall Common as a dumping ground without even due consideration for maintaining the existing facilities. We don't vote Councillors in or provide jobs, through our rates, for those people to act against our interests.

We write with regards to the proposed residential development in Frog Lane and the adjacent playing fields (Holly Lane Playing Fields) at Balsall Common. We have lived in Balsall Common since 2001 and have been a resident of Alder Lane specifically since May 2014 (with two children attending Heart of England School).

Whilst we attended an exhibition of proposed new developments earlier in the year, there were no plans included in respect of Holly Lane Playing Fields. In this regard, the plans which were exhibited at the time appeared reasonable and so we were happy to endorse these as potentially suitable (along with several other sites).

Based on the above we were both shocked and horrified to learn very recently that there are now plans to extend the Frog Lane site to include the Holly Lane Playing Fields. As a nearby resident, we are constant witness to the regular use of this site in terms of local dog walkers, and children using the space as a general area in which to play. The site is also regularly used by local football teams and in this regard, our son regularly uses the fields to train and for match fixtures (most weekends).

As a general point we would argue that if the village is going to be subject to residential development on the scale proposed then the requirement for green space for walking, exercise/general play (and for team sport) will increase. It would therefore seem wholly inappropriate to build on an established playing field, especially when it is so close to the secondary school, which would also benefit from additional green space/facilities for team sport.

Taking the above into account, we have a fundamental objection to the proposal to disregard/build on Holly Lane Playing Fields and would ask you to take into account/consider the following key points:

a) Why was the playing field added at such a late stage without any public consultation or knowledge?

b) The playing fields are a valuable public amenity, well used by local football teams, families and dog walkers. Government guidelines stipulate that such sites should be preserved and protected at all costs.

With regards to the second point in particular, please can you explain why SMBC is ignoring these guidelines.

We look forward to hearing from you.

I'd like to raise the following concerns regarding the development of the Frog Lane site - hardly a large plot, and so I don't believe that the damage caused by developing it will be justified by the relatively small number of additional homes:
1. Frog Lane is niche green belt land and has been selected over more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why is this the case?
2. The Frog Lane development is a green field site on the outskirts of the village, so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane. This seems particularly concerning, given point 1 above.
3. Balsall Street East and the roads surrounding the Balsall Common schools - adjacent to the Frog Lane development - are already severely congested (with increased related pollution) at school drop off and pick up time. The Frog Lane development would no doubt have access via Balsall Street East and the immediate area and adding up to another 300 cars into this congestion every day will only increase the problem. I would suggest you or one of your team visits Balsall Street East at around 8.40am on a weekday morning to see the extent of the current issue, to then review how developing Frog Lane will further exaggerate the problem.
4. The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around, as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site, but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less impact on the surrounding countryside - Dengate Drive appears to have been overlooked, for example.
5. The Frog Lane site is a considerable distance from the village amenities, and in particular the train station - which will encourage people to drive more and increase the congestion and pollution problems in the village - and so goes against government planning guidelines on the subject.

I am writing to you regarding the recent news of the proposed developments in Balsall common and the potential 1100 homes you are planning on enforcing on Balsall Common village. In particular I would like to confirm how Solihull Council has chosen the 3 proposed sites - out of a potential 40 - in particular the Frog Lane development.
The Frog Lane site was seen as an unlikely option when all 40 sites were initially submitted due to the issues and limitations related to the proposal. I was therefore surprised to hear the Frog Lane site has been selected and would like to request that Solihull Council reconsiders the selection based on the following issues related to the site:
* The Frog Lane is green belt land and has been selected over more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why?
* The Frog Lane development is a Green Field site on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane. I've spoken to several people living around Frog Lane who have previously had planning permissions for building work rejected due to Green Belt restrictions that will be requesting reviews of these decisions if the council approves the Frog Lane development. This will be in addition to developers using Frog Lane as the precedent when putting Solihull Council under pressure to approve future plans on the Green Belt in the area surrounding Balsall Common
* Balsall Street East and the roads surrounding the Balsall Common schools - adjacent to the Frog Lane development - are already severely congested (with increased related pollution) at school drop off and pick up time. The Frog Lane development would no doubt have access via Balsall Street East and the immediate area so adding up to another 300 cars into this congestion every day will only increase this problem. I would suggest you or one of your team visits Balsall Street East at around 8.40am on a weekday morning to see the extent of the issue. I would be happy to send you a video of it, if a visit is not possible
* The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less irreversible impact on the surrounding countryside.
* The Frog Lane site is a considerable distance from the village amenities and in particular the train station which will encourage people to drive more and increase the congestion and pollution problems in the village - and goes against government planning guidelines on the subject
* On a more general point proposing 1100 homes for the Balsall Common village - at least a 30% increase on the current population - will have a fundamental and irreversible impact on the village and change the way we live. Most of us chose to live in Balsall Common due to it's village status and adding 1100 homes will not only add unprecedented pressure on an already creaking infrastructure but have a negative impact on the current population of the village - without them having any say. 1100 homes is simply too much for the village and a short term move by Solihull Council to push the housing shortage issue onto an easy target such as Balsall Common
The selection of the Frog Lane site by Solihull Council is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that the Consultants they have used to submit their plans said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal. Please can you confirm the specific reasons why you have gone against all of this logic to select the Frog Lane site? I would urge you to consider a more suitable option.

Further email 13/2/2017:
Further to the instructions given by SMBC at the planning consultation meeting at Balsall Common library on the 7th January, I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.
As per my discussion with Gary Palmer on the 7th January there seems to be no clear reason why SMBC has selected the Frog Lane site other than to benefit directly from the Recreational Fields conversion to brownfield site and subsequent sale for development. The issues with The Frog Lane site are numerous - as listed below - and I would like to take this opportunity to suggest suitable alternatives that I would urge SMBC to consider
Issues with Frog Lane Development:
* The Frog Lane site is green belt land on the very edge of the village and has been selected over far more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why?
* It is too small a development - at only 150 homes it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed doctors, 4th class intake at school etc)
* The proposal comes with zero infrastructure additions so will only add to the severe congestion we already experience in the South of the village - only the developers will benefit and none of the existing residents
* The development is on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and shops forcing the potential residents to drive everywhere, further increasing congestion
* The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less impact on the surrounding countryside
* The Frog Lane development is a Green Field site on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane.
* The selection of the Frog Lane site by SMBC is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that their planning Consultants said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal.
Based on the above issues it seems to any reasonable person that the Frog Lane site is clearly unsuitable for development. Why have you selected it from more than 40 planning sites in the village - in particular alternative brownfield sites - when there are so many challenges with the site? It seems the only reason SMBC would select it is to profit directly from the conversion of the playing fields to brownfield status which would allow you to sell the site for a huge profit in the short to mid term. This would be a scandal and something we would rigorously challenge as residents should you proceed with the Frog Lane development

Alternative Proposal
I understand there is a need for additional housing in all areas of the countryside and that we as a community need to play our part. However, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane that benefits both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents, based on the following criteria:

* Select one large development with infrastructure included by the developers instead of 3 small sites and ideally select a brownfield or semi brownfield site (of which there are several in the village)
* Make the developers pay for the vital infrastructure the village will need to accommodate the expansion - with a large enough proposal the developers will pay for the infrastructure we need (shops, gym, community centre etc)
* Pick a site near the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Leave greenbelt sites alone when there are alternative brownfield sites available as once you approve any plans on greenbelt you are negatively impacting the countryside forever and can't be reversed in our lifetimes
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.

There is a clear threat from the proposed residential development at Frog Lane, Balsall Common and that means please note my formal objection to the proposed development.

Also, please might you confirm, as Frog Lane is a green field site, why it has been preferred to other available brown field sites, and also confirm:

1. How the proposed development, which is 1.5 miles from local amenities, complies with government planning guidelines
2. As you know the playing fields are a valuable community amenity and resource and government guidelines stipulate that such resources should be preserved at all costs. So, please might you confirm on what grounds SMBC is ignoring these guidelines
3. On what grounds the playing fields were added at a very late stage in the consultation process, without consultation
4. SMBC Connected Strategy / Transport Strategy acknowledges the significant levels of congestion in this part of the village. So, please might you confirm the justification for further development in this area, which will only worsen the levels of congestion
5. On what grounds were alternative available brown field sites rejected

We would like to register my concern with regard to potentially losing the public open space at Holly Lane.

Having recently moved to Balsall common in the last 6 months, we find that having a open and safe environment at this end of the village enables us to have an escape for our family when walking the dog/exercising or gaining access to the beautiful open fields which surrounds this area. If we didn't have this space they would have to walk to the far end of the village (Lavender Hall), along the busy main road.

If housing was to built in this zone the increased traffic (including HGV's) would also pose a increased accident concern to an already busy junction at Kenilworth Road and along Alder Lane/Holly lane and Balsall Street East. Especially as these are the main walking and vehicular routes to both the main schools.

We understand that new housing developments are key to the sustainable growth of Balsall Common, but it is clear that other areas are more convenient and less disruptive.

With these developments in mind It is also clear that Balsall Common requires to decrease the traffic flow along Kenilworth Road and be diverted via a much needed bypass. (Hallmeadow road zone) We understand this is a viable solution and therefore would consider that any future housing developments are better zoned around this area.

We would like to be invited to any future public meetings/consultations around the future growth of Balsall Common, including housing/facilities, A452 bypass and HS2.