Object

Alternative Sites Consultation

Representation ID: 44276

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: Carl Booth

Representation Summary:

This area is of outstanding natural beauty.

Traffic congestion would be disastrous. The roads are already congested and there isn't space to widen them.

Development would urbanise the area and Cubbington will lose its village identity.

Cubbington suffers from flooding so concreting over the landscape will worsen the regularity and severity of the flooding.

The fields are full of wildlife and contain well used public footpaths.

The proposal is on greenbelt land. Brownfield sites should be redeveloped prior to building on supposedly protected land.

Lastly the infrastructure just cannot handle it. Existing services would be under more pressure than they are already.

Full text:

I very much object to the development of Glebe Farm Cubbington. This is an area of outstanding natural beauty and to turn it into another faceless development would be a great shame. In addition it would cause the following problems:
* Traffic congestion would be disastrous. Cubbington Road/Rugby Road are already very busy and grind to a halt if a vehicle blocks a lane. There isn't space to dual carriage this road so additional homes would make this worse. In addition the queues at the mini roundabout at the top of Windmill hill are very long during evening rush hour so another few thousand cars will create gridlock
* Cubbington is a village with a village community and this development would urbanise the whole area and it will lose its identity which would be a great shame.
* Lower Cubbington regularly suffers from flooding so concreting over a large chunk of the local landscape will surely worsen the regularity and severity of the flooding
* The fields are full of wildlife (we regularly see bats at dusk out the back of our house as well as many different birds and butterflies) and contain public footpaths which are well used. These would be lost to everyone if the development went ahead.
* We were under the impression that some of the proposed development site was green belt land? Surely there are brownfield sites or run down urban areas that should be redeveloped prior to building on supposedly protected land?
* Lastly the infrastructure just cannot handle it. Emergency vehicles could be delayed due to the excess traffic, local schools are already close to full occupancy and there has been no mention of additional amenities (doctors, dentists etc) which would mean existing services would be under more pressure than they are already.