02 Balsall Common - Frog Lane

I would like to formally object to the proposed housing development on HOLLY Lane playing fields. I regularly use this site along with my family to walk our dog, jog and participate in other fitness activities. I have never seen these fields empty, and hope that this is not taken away from the many residents that use it in the village.

I would like to formally object to the proposed housing development on this beloved site in the village. This site has long been used by the entirety of my family, from sporting activity to dog walking. To use it as a housing development would take away an integral part of our village character.
I hope you consider this objection

Recreational field known as Holly Lane playing field
I would like to formally object to this proposed housing development. This site is regularly used by my family and a large number of the Balsall Common residents.

see attached letter

I have been reviewing the new Draft Local Development Plan which is currently out for consultation. In particular I have been looking at those planned areas for housing within and around Balsall Common.
I think that the Council should consider the following before finalising these plans.
In this respect I believe the council has a responsibility to consider areas that give a balanced and coherent approach to the expansion of this conurbation.
Firstly it needs to bear in mind public transport access.
Placing new houses further and further away from the railway station will only exacerbate the lack of parking at the station ending up with roadside parking all the way up Hall Meadow Road every weekday. To this end the development out at Frog Lane is particularly unsuitable. Also in this respect the provision of scheduled buses near Frog Lane is patchy with only an hourly bus to Solihull and none to Coventry. For those who cannot drive this is a severe limitation.
Secondly it needs to ensure that an enlarged conurbation has all the facilities it needs to maintain a thriving active community and not just become a dormitory town. Therefore the placement of these facilities also needs careful consideration. New facilities should not be placed just in those places currently under consideration and expansion should consider the location of existing facilities eg GP surgery etc.
With the increase in housing comes the need for increased schooling. For Balsall Common we need to plan a second Junior school and not just expand the existing school. These schools should be within walking distance. At the moment with the existing junior school there is chaos on the local roads at start and finish of school. This will only get worse if an enlarged school is located in this part of Balsall Common. By locating a new Junior school to the north end of Balsall Common it would relieve the pressure around Holly Lane and Balsall Street East. It would also provide some relief to the nearby Berkswell Primary School.
The Frog lane site is also further away from the centre of the village and other amenities like the GP surgery this will only worsen the dire parking provision, as more people are forced to drive to the village centre.
Thirdly the removal of existing green space with public access.
I was dismayed to see that the existing recreational areas on Frog/Holly Lane have now been included in the plan. This is a potential erosion of existing recreational green space, which needs to be preserved, not taken away. Addition of this area for development needs further explanation from the council.
Finally another problem with the proposed Frog Lane area is its proximity to the Birmingham Airport flightpath. This means is that it will be prone to higher noise levels and air pollution that builders (and prospective house purchasers) will need to be aware of. Also has the council informed the airport of its plans to build close to its flightpath? The airport will not be keen to pay any compensation arising from this additional housing.
I would appreciate answers to these points and to the questions raised. Please show us that there is some 'joined up' thinking to this expansion. We need a clear strategy.

I tried to leave comments online but gave up!

After attending the meeting this morning in our local library I have a number of concerned regarding the additional housing proposed in Balsall Common but my main one is to use the land in Holly Lane (allotments and playing fields).

We have recently acquired (and paid for) a plot at Holly Lane Allotments, after being on the waiting list for sometime. We are now about to purchase a shed for our Christmas pressies of garden tools but are unsure on the way forward. These allotments are well loved and people have been working and improving the soil for some considerable years and it would not just be a matter of giving us a new area. On my part it is very important as this is within walking distance from where I live and I do not have a garden. Also, the road is extremely busy during certain times of the day outside the school and I would sincerely hope thought is given to any new houses on this road as it could not take any additional traffic. There is also the problem with increasing the school numbers. Although I do not have any connection with the school I am aware it is fully subscribed.

I realise this email may not be the correct way to register my concerns but do hope it will be accepted as this is very important to me.

see attached letter

Re LPR Ref. (75) Proposed development at Frog Lane, Balsall Common

As residents of Gipsy Lane, which connects Kenilworth Road to Holly Lane (via a crossroad junction with Balsall Street), we would like to comment as follows :

A development of this size would require significant improvement to infrastructure which is not provided by this proposal.

Although we note that additional traffic outlets are planned, the obvious route for much of the increased volume of traffic generated by this proposal would be via Gipsy Lane. Bearing in mind the presence of the High School, the size of Lane and the congestion currently experienced at peak times, we feel this would be entirely unacceptable, not only for the residents of Gipsy Lane but also for the pupils of the school and their parents.

We also suspect that the current development by Jaguar Land Rover at their site beyond Brees Lane will increase the traffic volume in Balsall Common via Kenilworth Lane/Gipsy Lane/Holly Lane, and this should be also be considered by the council.

The loss of green spaces around the village is also of concern when one looks at the proposed and current building developments around the area as a whole. We note that the Frog Lane development will take away the area currently used as a playing field for schools and others.

Thanking you for your attention.

see attached letter - sent by email

see attached letter received by email
original letter superseded by amended version that included tenancy address

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.

Dear Planning Department
I like at Cranbrook Lodge, Holly Lane, Balsall Common and wish to strongly express my concern about the inclusion of the Holly Lane Playing Fields as part of the Frog Lane development plan.
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 a healthcare professional and professor of general practice at Warwick Medical School, I am very concerned that the public health implications of losing this important space be fully considered, particularly in the face of the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and mental health problems which face the borough. We need to be encouraging 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 physical and mental health. Convenient access to outdoor space is vital if we want to give everyone the chance to exercise to improve 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.
Hence, I am very unclear how this proposal to build on the recreation ground can be justified in light of SMBC's Public Health strategy, strategy for playing fields, and Sport England's guidance on maintaining recreation grounds. I would also like to know why this proposal was not included an option at the public consultation meeting that was held in the village last August.
Finally, the Frog Lane site lacks access to amenities, and is in a part of the village that is already traffic congested at school times. It is unclear how the proposal to build homes here can be justified in relation to other potential sites that offer great accessibility to amenities.

Kind regards
Jeremy Dale (Holly Lane resident for 19 years, making at least daily use of the playing fields)

see attached letter

Frog lane development shouldn't be developed because of the playing field is used a lot even by the school. Infrastructure needs to be put in first. Parking is key and schools.

Frog lane development should be replaced with Oakes Farm.

I strongly oppose the development that is planned for Frog Lane as it is a popular site for dog walkers, general walkers and local football teams. It has also been known to be certified green land so is more valuable kept as it is and I think developing elsewhere would be much more beneficial both for the council and residents.

I prefer Oakes Farm development rather than Frog Lane . Spitfire do lovely properties.

Frog Lane development should be opposed. I would support Oakes Farm as a replacement site. I don't understand that Frog Lane development is building on playing fields.

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : I support building new homes at Oakes Farm instead of Frog Lane.

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : I prefer development on Oakes Farm rather than Frog Lane

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : Frog lane site should be stopped. Oakes Farm is suitable alternative. I like spitfire properties designs. I urge s106 to be spent is the parish for amenities.

Support of Barrage Objections for Balsall Common Developments
I would like to add my support to the objections to the proposed development sites as expressed by the BARRAGE group. I fully agree with their findings and am extremely concerned, as a long time resident of Balsall Common, of the detrimental effect such developments will have to the village.

Additionally, as the site representative for the Holly Lane Allotments since their introduction, I am extremely concerned that this site, if not specifically included in the development plans at the present time, will become more vulnerable if the development at Frog Lane and Holly Lane goes ahead. They are an unique facility in the village, providing a social, emotional and healthy activity to many people. All plots are enthusiastically cared for and there has been a waiting list for an allotment since their instigation and there remains one today.

I would seek reassurance and clarity from Solihull that this site is not under threat, either now, nor will be, in the future.

NDP Comments
I would like to make an objection to the proposed development of the Frog Lane site in Balsall Common. I realise that the council needs development to take place, however the site off Frog Lane is not suitable as the infrastructure would need significant improvement which could cause significant problems for the residents. The site is south of the village in the worst traffic hot spot in Balsall Common, with traffic quite often in queues and parking outside the primary school making it dangerous for pedestrians.

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, these locations such as The Grange should be prioritised over the Frog Lane site.

According to the plans shown at the council consultation the playing fields (which is Green Belt land) are to be included in the Frog Lane development. This is totally wrong as in the south of the village there is a lack of public green space with this being the only park land. The park is used by a wide range of groups including dog walkers, sports teams and the girl guides. Government advise states disposal or change of use of playing field and school land requires prior written consent of the Secretary of State for Education (which includes any transfer/sale of freehold or leasehold land and the grant/surrender of a lease). Applications and notifications must be made to the Education Funding Agency. Before making an application (or giving notification) to the EFA. Sport England should also be consulted when an application involves removing playing fields.

It is my belief that Solihull Council should remove the Frog Lane development from the NDP and look at alternative sites.

see attached letter and report from BC BARRAGE action group

Do you agree with the Borough Vision?
The centre of Balsall Common will certainly not continue to thrive in the way that is sought if the developments along the Kenilworth Road (A452) and Frog Lane take place. These developments will mean hundreds more cars on the road along Windmill Lane, (a quiet rural lane with an historic Windmill), Kelsey Lane, Kenilworth Road and Balsall Street, leading up to the one and only school in the village. If you look on google maps you will see the existing severe congestion along the A452 already. My children go to Berkswell school and as it is I go right round the edge of the village to avoid the main road as it is frequently at a stand still or moving very slowly along at 9am in the morning. The people who would be living on the Kenilworth Road estate, in particular, would largely be using there cars to get anywhere, hence a massive increased congestion and parking problem for the village. Access to the village centre is much more difficult from this side of the village and most people in there daily lives would not walk that distance along a busy main road. The only option is walking along Meeting House Lane, down which for a large part, there is no pavement. I have been based in the village for over 30 years and can honestly say from my experience of living in the village that this is certainly the wrong side of the village to be developing. Firstly, it is green belt land (Government policy dictates that non-green belt land should be used first for development). There will be plenty of land to be developed nearer the sites allocated for HS2. Secondly, there isn't the infrastructure or services available on this side of the village to accommodate more housing and at the same time maintain the pleasant nature of the village. If 1200 are to be added to the village (I note the same number as in Knowle and Dorridge), the Council needs to make sure that services are provided at the same time. Knowle has a long High Street and small Mall with numerous shops and Dorridge has its own high street with large Sainsburys. How will Balsall Common's small village centre cope with this porportionally massive increase in numbers of cars and people? Housing shouldn't be developed in these locations as it will destroy the village. Rather, development should take place at a reasonable distance away from existing development with significant conditions being placed on developers to provide services, green areas separating new development from existing development and a new school. In addition, good walking access to the village and train station should be essential. As it is, the car park at Berkswell station isn't big enough to accommodate existing numbers of cars and people travelling by train park all along Riddings Hill. I understand that there have been proposals by Bryant Homes, which would satisfy a lot of the above and that these have not been taken up. In the site proposed (although it is also near the Kenilworth Road), new residents would be able to walk to a new school on the new development, walk to new amenities, and also walk through the existing Lavendar Hall Park to the existing shops and the train station. There would be much more connectivity with the village, without relying on the existing services in full and encourage more people to walk, as the means of doing so would be much easier. Just because the Kenilworth Road site is considered of slightly less greenbelt worth, does not automatically mean that it should be developed first. There are so many other social considerations (many of which you may be unaware of as you probably have not lived here) that must be taken into account in ensuring that Balsall Common maintains its vibrant and more rural nature and a place where people continue to choose to live. These are surely your objectives.

Developing the Kenilworth Road and Frog Lane sites is the wrong side of the village to be developing. There aren't the services nor the infrastructure to accommodate such a development. It would lead to massive increased congestion and parking issues. There would be no connectivity with the existing village nor services, (such as the shops and the train station), which would mean that car usage would be essential by these residents. The proposed Bryant homes site, for example, would be much better as new residents would be able to walk to existing services and new services would be provided.

I don't consider that the selection criteria have been correctly applied:
*This is GREEN BELT LAND and this should have over-riding priority over all other criteria.
*It will further increase the size of the village causing additional problems in traffic congestion, parking, overcrowding of the secondary school (and hence further lowering academic standards), and service provision.
*It will permanently contribute to further ALTERING THE CHARACTER OF THE VILLAGE, which would be completely at odds with the Borough's policies.

There should therefore be NO BUILDING on Frog Lane, AND IT SHOULD BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO A LARGE CONURBATION - SOLIHULL

see attached vision statement

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:


"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"


I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.


The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.


1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.


3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of sites 2 and 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.


5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably causedelays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".


6) Sites 2 and 3 score poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties


7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.


8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.


9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.



10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to bothinfrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to"manage the growth."


Further to the above


11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.


In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:


1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport


2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2


4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development


5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 2 and 3 are removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of sites 2 and 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably causedelays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Sites 2 and 3 score poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

Further to the above

11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 2 and 3 are removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

I am writing to show my strong disapproval for the planned 1150 new houses in the Balsall Common area in which I currently live. Why are you contravening the latest government White Paper directive recently published that states that green belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative. Yet your current proposed development under consultation has proposed building on 3 green belt sites HA1, HA2 and HA3 when there have been 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall common already submitted. Why have these sites been ignored and green belt sites given precedence