Do you support or object to the development of Glebe Farm, Cubbington?

Cubbington is a mature rural village. The linking of Lillington/ Leamington to the Southern boundaries of the village would create a land mass which would be detrimental to the local environment area.

The visual impact to the properties along Parklands Avenue would destroy a long standing natural view.

Wildlife established in the area will lose their natural habitat.

Cubbington already has a well documented outstanding sewer/ drainage problem. Additional housing would place an unwarranted burden on the existing infrastructure. This must impinge on any planning considerations.

The topography of the whole area has a potential to cause serious drainage/ sewer problems which in turn would make it difficult to provide low cost affordable housing.

Welch Road is already subject to excessive speeds and Windmill Hill, where new speed limits are daily ignored, would face an intolerable increase in traffic levels.

A large scale development like this would cause problems for schools and doctors and it would be the end of Cubbington as a village in its own right. The wildlife would be affected and the traffic, which is already a nightmare, would be absolutely dreadful. But what we the public say won't make much difference as money talks.

It is all greenbelt.

Where will the rain water go? It will go into the Leam and will flood the bottom of the Parade again and all the fields leading to the Leam.

The site in question is and always had been farmland, and with quite high density of clay in the soil can very easily flood in heavy rainfall.

Having personal experience of subsidence affecting part of the rear of the house and the whole of the detached garage area indicates that following severe hot summers and relatively dry winters the clay element can shrink as easily as it holds water. This would put the proposed houses at risk of flooding or subsidence.

Traffic on the Cubbington Road is already very dense at certain times of the day and with additional vehicles could lead to gridlock, minor bumps, frustration or even fatal accidents.

Any access to the proposed site could cause problems due to the narrowness of the side roads of Parklands Avenue and may well lead to compulsory purchase of some space of dwelling or even the property.

Should the scheme proceed, Old Cubbington village would look like a small carbuncle on the end of a large sprawl.

Although realising that many more houses will be necessary during the next twenty years, erosion of so much green areas is totally undesirable.

The area is prone to flooding. This has already happened in the Oakridge Road/ Parklands Ave and is a regular occurrence in the area off Offchurch Road, abutting the sire. The area is bowl shaped and water retention is not helped by a cap of heavy clay. We have personal experience of subsidence and know only too well the hazards of building on heavy clay.

Any further demands on an already poor sewage system by such a large building development would be catastrophic.

There is already a congestion problem, at the junction of Parklands Ave/ Cubbington Road. The proposed access onto the new development from minor roads off Parklands Avenue is inadequate in every road designated. This would result in traffic saturation and possibly compulsory purchase orders being served on some unfortunate homes.

We moved here in 1965. The area designated has been for all that period, productive farmland, also supporting wildlife. If greenbelt land is encroached upon in this instance, it is the thin edge of a developmentally driven wedge.

We have one doctor's surgery in this ward. The only employer of consequence is Thwaites. The result is that, if developed, this site would produce possibly 4000 people need to travel south and west for all essential journeys, through Leamington and towards Warwick.

So many villages have just become suburbs, pleasant perhaps but characterless. It would be very sad to see Cubbington village subsumed into 'Greater Leamington'.

Traffic congestion in the area would undoubtedly follow. Roads are already full to capacity at peak times.

If there is any probability of flooding, or of decreasing needed flood plain acreage, no building should ever be permitted.

We need to keep the area green. I don't want to live on another Warwick Gates or Chase Meadow.

We want to save our greenbelt.

We want Cubbington to remain a village.

We were victims of flooding in Cubbington in 2007. Further development will seriously place residents extremely at risk. We need our green belt as a deterrent against possible future flooding.

We are therefore strongly objecting to this proposed future development which is absurd. We moved into this beautiful village 34 years ago to escape concrete jungles.

We are strongly against the proposed development of Glebe Farm, Cubbington.

We are a young family living in the village; our children attend our local village school. We have chosen to bring our children up in this beautiful village and a village environment is where we want them to grow up in not a concrete jungle. We would fear for their safety due to the volume of traffic this horrendous proposed development would create.

Save our green belt!

I object to any future development in the Cubbington area for the following reasons:

It would ruin traditional village life in Cubbington which has been going strong since 1066.

It would ruin the local countryside and amenities.

The flood plain could not take any more water - sewage leakage.

I have lived in Cubbington all my life. It is a village and must be protected from the sprawl of building to cater for the policies of central government to encourage mass migration and expansion of the population at the expense of the citizens it is supposed to represent and completely ignores.

I just feel that the village will lose its identity. Also the flooding issue is a massive problem, as is the traffic, because i live near the island at the top of Windmill Hill. I think the whole idea is ridiculous and should be squashed.

I have lived in Cubbington to 45 years, my husband was born here as his mother before him. We have stayed in Cubbington because we do not want to become part of Leamington, we have been a village for many years and this is how we want it to stay. We must stand firm to prevent the sprawl of large built up areas like Leamington.

We need to keep the greenbelt for the wildlife and the people of Cubbington who like to walk the footpaths.

We need to think of the schools as with the amount of traffic that there will be, it will put a great deal of pressure on the schools and houses around the area.

The heavy clay causes the site to be prone to flooding on the land making it worse for house around the Thwaites area which was badly hit in 2007.

Would the government like to be told that homes would be built in their back garden?

We must fight to keep Cubbington a VILLAGE.

This green space and the walks across it are the only off road walks in the area and a vital green lung between the sprawl of town and the peace of the village, which already suffers flooding due largely to previous developments and inadequate provision for drainage of underground springs etc in the area.

As these options were submitted by interested parties at such a late a date I also think they should be rejected on principal and not considered at this round of registration, nobody wants to be steamrollered into a sudden and possibly damaging decision we will all have to live with.

There is also the problem of schools, only 2 small infant schools in the immediate area, and a very poor bus service, which as with Chase Meadows could easily be withdrawn after initial promises, even if it were to be improved at a later date.

Surely it would be better to concentrate on the already developed area of say Warwick Gates and improve the schools and services for these areas for the people already committed to living there. Many people, and relatives, chose to move to Cubbington Village for just that reason - it is a village. A small limited number of ¾ bed houses could perhaps be allowed but I stress limited, and they need to be attached to 'the village' not New Cubbington to preserve the village as an entity. Probably a maximum of 30 houses and at an affordable price, not luxury spec builds.

The junctions at Windmill Hill; the shops in Rugby Road; Telford Avenue; Parklands Avenue; Crown Way; and Lime Avenue are almost impossible to get out of at busy times. Flooding in Cubbington will not bear thinking about.

We would have no objections to the use of this land for building more homes if the plans included the provision of additional educational facilities (namely primary schools to accommodate the additional children in the 1000 homes). The apparent absence of any such plans is alarming and incredibly short-sighted. As many parents of young children in the Warwick Gates/Whitnash/Heathcote area have recently experienced difficulties in primary school admissions, it would be ludicrous to even contemplate adding a further 1000 new homes into the mix. Any new housing development will inevitably attract young people, newly-married couples, and people wanting to start a family. This has been the story of Warwick Gates over the past ten plus years, and now many of the residents have primary school-aged children, who are expected to somehow be squashed into a few spare places within the existing local schools. This is bad enough, but to potentially increase this problem further would be disastrous to the community.

I object as the traffic is already congested and also there are a lot of badgers and wildlife that will die from their dens being moved as they have been protected since 1992. I also believe that this will flood the area very easily as it has already had a flood pool put in down the Cubbington road which will not cope with more floods. I think these are valid reasons and believe that the other areas are more adequate to cope with transport and flooding.

This development needs another school and surgery, etc. The roads at Windmill Hill and Rugby Road can't cope with traffic levels at present.

There are major unknowns about the flooding problems in the village at present, this new development only adds to the problem.

If this raiding of the green belt is approved, then the next step is to fill in housing between Offchurch and Cubbington.

On the proposed site there are colonies of Great Crested Newts and Badgers, both protected species. While not impossible to bulldoze over these things, it is very costly legally and with Council.

Tax costs always under scrutiny; it may be prohibitive cost wise.

The Green Belt has to be supported at all costs for the future; England cannot be covered in bricks and mortar, if we are to retain our tradition and identity.

* Access to the proposed development is at present non-existent and would surely create huge safety issues both on narrow closes of Parklands Avenue and through The Crest and Mason Avenue, but also with increased traffic on Cubbington Road and the junctions from this. Traffic is already heavy at peak times and the new Tesco store has increased traffic at the junction at Crown Way. It appears likely that any further development of the roads would lead to existing roads being used as a cut through for traffic to Leamington again leading to safety problems on roads not designed for heavy traffic. Speed humps have already been put in to curb use and speed surely they cannot take more cars.
* Would Cubbington lose its village status with all these extra houses?
* The wildlife and birds would clearly lose their habitats, the badgers' setts and flying area for the red kite in particular.
* The distance from Leamington and lack of facilities in Cubbington would make the area undesirable for many low cost housing residents leading to further pressure to develop into designated Green Belt Land. This development would then exacerbate any initial traffic/safety problems in the future.
* I wish to formally register my strongest objections to any consideration of having this area re-designated from its current planning designation of agricultural land.

These seven sites are in addition to the 28 options already considered in developing the Core Strategy. It will be necessary for decision-makers to have a clear protocol for deciding which, if any, of these sites should be approved for development.

CPRE has serious reservations about if and when it will be necessary to provide more housing in Warwick District. We are well aware that the Panel Report on the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has recommended a target figure of 11,000 new dwellings for the period 2006-2026. But the case for this is weak. It is a far higher rate of building than the District has seen in past decades. It meets no obvious need: there is not a high level of natural population growth, nor is significant in-migration forecast.

We are concerned that the housing proposals do not appear to be matched by robust proposals for providing employment; as a result they cannot be sustainable. Similarly there is no clear commitment to providing timely infrastructure of schools, health provision, shops, public transport and open space. The proposed sites now been consulted on

CPRE has serious objections to these proposals advanced by developers.

* All the sites are green-field countryside.
* All except Site 2 are in the West Midlands Green Belt.
* All would destroy valuable features of the environment
* All would destroy plant-life and habitats for animals.
* All would affect public footpaths through the landscape
* All would require new infrastructure
* All would increase traffic on surrounding roads
* All suffer from lack of public transport

In all cases careful consideration will have to be given to flood risk, availability of and access to employment.

This development would take away the identity of both Cubbington and Lillington. The stretch on the village resources would be immense. Our children are taught in schools with manageable class sizes now that give our children the best start in life unless a school is included in the housing project how can the council expect our village schools to cope with the huge amount of children a development of this size could produce now and in the future.
We also have concerns around the topography of the land, already a village at risk of flooding every time there is major rainfall how can the council guarantee this would not worsen. The villagers building and contents insurance would continue to rise also putting at risk the value of the properties.

Our local businesses would also suffer with I'm sure extra shops planned for the development. Their naivety in expecting a development of this size to bring in more trade has been overlooked.

This is a designated Green Belt area which should be preserved to protect and maintain the quality of its immediate environment.
The impact on the quality of life in the adjacent neighborhoods would be wholly negative.
The road and transport infrastructure is already over stretched. Traffic congestion cause's delays to journeys in to and away from Leamington centre at peak times, particularly, 8am-9am and 3.30pm-5.30pm Monday - Friday. The road surfaces are only just adequate and would deteriorate with more traffic on them. There are no major employers or workplaces which are accessible without a journey by road. These journeys would damage the local infrastructure, over time, and contribute, immediately, to increased pollution adding to the threat of global warming due to unnecessary fuel emissions. Congested traffic significantly increases the wasted, but harmful, fuel emissions.

There is some spare capacity at the local secondary school (North Leamington School) but this will depend on the number of dwellings. There is little or no spare capacity at the local Primary Schools.

The Highways Agency (HA) together with Warwickshire County Council (WCC) is currently undertaking an assessment of the implications of the strategic housing and employment allocations proposed in the Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options paper for both the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and the local road network. This work is expected to be completed by June 2010 and will help determing what, if any, measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed development options on the SRN will be requred. This work should also help to inform the development of the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which will underping the Core Stretegy.

Given the uncertainty about which, if any, of the alternative sites are suitable for development, the HA has been unable to undertake any such detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of these sites at this time but would wish to do so when there is greater clarity. For the purposes of responding to this consultation, we have, therefore, undertaken a qualitative assesment of each of the sites focussing on the potential impacts of each site on the SRN and their suitabilty in terms of sustainability.

Site 3 is located between Cubbington and Lillington to the north eats of Leamington Spa relatively close to the A46 Thickthorn Interchange; and with easy access to the A46 Toll Bar End junction some 11km away.

While the site is reasonably well located in terms of its proximity to existing public transport services and local facilities, the relatively straightforward access to the SRN from the site is of concern. Access to good public transport and other sustainable transport means will, therefore, be important if this site is brought forward for development.

All six of the proposed alternative sites are considered to have some impact upon the SRN. It is expected that Site 2 would have the least impact, due to the relative distance from the M40, and the number of local services, amenities, and employment sites within the neighbouring areas. The remaining sites would have a more noticeable impact upon the SRN. Site 6 in particular has the potential to severely impact upon some sensitive locations along the A46. As set out above, we would, of course, wish to undertake further detailed assessment of the traffic impacts of the sites on the SRN when there is greater clarity about which, if any, sites are considered to be suitable for development.

Thank you for consulting English Heritage on the suggested additional six strategic sites.
Before any commitment to any strategic site is made there is an expectation that a thorough strategic environmental assessment/sustainability appraisal will have been undertaken and that evidence would have been gathered and applied to demonstrate the relative suitability, capacity, deliverability and consistency with matters such as regional (RSS QE 1, 5 and 6) and national planning policy has been determined. At present whether or not this has occurred is unclear. In this respect we refer you to our previous correspondence of 25 September 2009, our specific comments relating to the evidence base and also to the recently published PPS5 and its associated good practice guide.

Please note that English Heritage considers that this apparent shortcoming is fundamental to the soundness of the Core Strategy.

In addition to this generic maxim please find an initial observation on each site based, unfortunately, on a rather crude desk top consideration.

Site 2, 3 and 5 - Land at Campion School, Glebe Farm and Hurst Farm South
The Historic Environment Record and County Council's Historic Landscape Characterisation project may prove to be of particular use in establishing the historic significance of these sites. Certainly due to the limited specific designations the broader historic value and the wider landscape setting should be investigated.

HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF FLOODING - BOTH IN VALLEY & CROWN WARD (AS AT PRESENT).
JOINS OLD CUBBINGTON VILLAGE TO GREATER RL/SPA, WELSH RD & "C" ESTATE RDS IN CROWN WARD JUST COULD NOT COPE WITH THE EXTRA TRAFFIC.
A NEW 1* SCHOOL WOULD BE NEEDED, ALSO A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE.
LOSS OF WILD LIFE HABITAT.
ALL SUPERMARKETS ARE SOUTH OF RIVER LEAM, THE FEW BRIDGES COULD NOT COPE WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM THIS DISTANT PROPOSED SITE.
C 2K HOMES WOULD NEED A COMMUNITY CENTRE, PARK PLAY AREAS, ALLOTMENTS ETC.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS ILL THOUGHT OUT & A RESULT OF NEED OF FUNDS FOR THE CHARITY, RATHER THAN ON SOUND TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING PRINCIPLES, IT SHOULD BE STIFLED AT THIS EARLY STAGE.

It will spoil the view from my house.

I chose to live in a village not joined to a town.

Born and bred in Cubbington and I would like it to stay a village.

Would not feel safe in own home as undesirables would be placed to live in new development.

Cubbington lies in a hollow and suffers from severe flooding, the most recent was only a couple of years ago. Some households were out of their houses for 12-18 months. Drains are inadequate. It would completely spoil the village to be joined to Lillington.

The village of Cubbington has been here for centuries (Entry in the Domesday Book) and deserves to keep its identity and not be swallowed up by infill of housing or are we to lose all sense of individuality and community? (Indeed Nationality?).

We don't want to lose our greenbelt. We would like to see our village stay as a village. Offchurch Road, through Cubbington is already a busy thoroughfare for traffic, without adding to it if access for the development is via Offchurch Road.

Flooding is also a big issue in this area. The area of land in question supports an array of wildlife - we don't want to lose it. Pressure would be put on local amenities and also the narrow roads leading through our village. Also we do not want to lose our view.