Warwick District Council have received proposals from other sites, which more than adequately provide for the quota being imposed by Government, so there really should be no need to even consider this site.

Cubbington was one of the areas affected by the flooding in 2007 where some 50 homes became uninhabitable for anything up to a year.

In addition there are issues in relation to
1) volume of traffic - access within the development and through the village to
2) Infrastructure - schools, medical facilities, local hospitals, transport, refuse collection, recycling, access for bin lorries, fire engines, ambulances etc, access to childcare and nursery care, local employment
3) environment - loss of footpaths, badger community and newt community
4) complying with the sustainable housing code not covered by the above
5) this is a green belt site

The proposal put forward by Stansgate Planning on behalf of the owners of the land is flawed on several levels -

a) Environmental constraints response was NONE in respect of floods
b) states only have a medium impact on landscape
c) claims to offer access to a wide range of jobs services and community facilities for an additional 2000+ residents ? how?
d) claim that developing this site will provide a balance between jobs and workers..how have they arrived at this conclusion?
e) the site incorporates the buildings at Hill House Farm (which would not be available for redevelopment)
f) there are a number of Public Footpaths running through the site
g) claims that site is sustainable with schools and employment opportunities close by - how with an extra 2000 dwellings?
h) claims that there are regular links to main shopping employment centres and access to train station by bus. The bus runs every half hour, first one does not leave village until 07.08am arriving at station at 07.33am and is a single decker bus.
i) states that locations should be assessed on their ability to provide a balance between jobs and workers..so this proposal fails on that criteria

In addition, Warwick District Council are also reneging on their promises to
1) re use brownfieds sites before green belt sites
2) protecting and enhancing the environment by controlling the location and design of new developments
3) avoid development in flood zones
4) enable limited development where it can meet local and business needs and maintain the vitality of those communities in locations that protect and enhance the character of the village...how does that apply in our case?
5) strictly control development within the open countryside