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

Object

1. Cubbington would be connected to Lillington - Lillington in turn to Leamington; creating one large urban sprawl.
2. The existing road system could not handle the increase in traffic and would increase the already overcrowded roads in the area.
3. Cubbington village already suffers very bad flooding problems. This could only be made worse, by the lack of drainage currently existing by new development.
4. Building on greenbelt should not take place. The Planning Department/ Council have in the past, avoided joining Sydenham to Radford Semele for all the same reasons that would affect Cubbington.
5. Detrimental effect on wildlife.
6. Lack of infrastructure to support this development i.e. schools, doctors, work.
7. Loss of Cubbington village identity.

Object

Object on the grounds of over development

Object

Everyone I have spoken to is extremely concerned that village life as we know it will quite possibly disappear. This is totally unacceptable! Apart from this, there is enormous concern about building on an area which is prone to severe flooding. There is currently a lack of doctors; schools etc in this area and the increase in traffic would be huge. The impact on flora and fauna would be devastating and the entire plan fills me and many others with horror.

Please keep the green spaces round our towns. We need our breathing spaces. Cubbington and Offchurch must be kept separate from Lillington. This is good agricultural land. More houses will need wider loads, bigger roundabouts, more traffic. It may well cause more flooding in Cubbington Village. There will be more accidents in the narrow lands around Offchurch.

1. Warwick Gates 2 - no thanks
2. Schools and doctors wouldn't cope
3. Traffic congestion would be unbearable
4. More countryside and wildlife would disappear
5. Say yes to keep village life

1. Increase traffic on Cubbington Road and Rugby Road
2. More congestion at Windmill Hill, Rugby Road, Kenilworth Road roundabout which is already an accident hot spot.
3. Loss of well used public footpaths
4. Cubbington is a village with a local thriving community and no wish to be joined onto Lillington.

The strategic plan to council's preferred sites have sufficient space to accommodate all future housing requirements to 2026.
Employment growth is in the South of Leamington and there are no sufficient river crossings to take 3000 extra households worth of vehicles across the town to the growing employment centres.
Light pollution from extra houses will make it near impossible to stargaze within the village.
Proposed access routes are insufficient for the projected volume of traffic. Alternatives will have to be found (Rugby Road shops or Offchurch Lane) causing further disruption over and above that marked on the plan.
Neither Cubbington nor Lillington have sufficient employment opportunities to accommodate 2000 more households. Therefore any new development will effectively be a 'dormer' estate with residents travelling to their place of work on already stretched road infrastructure.
Village life in Cubbington will be eroded, as will the community spirit, as the extra 2000+ households will 'anonymise' the community.
Cubbington Parish Council tax attracts a premium as a village, and Cubbington should be retained as such.
Sufficient brownfield sites exist to provide the 10800 houses required, without encroaching on the greenbelt.

1. Such a large proposed development would produce greatly increased traffic, particularly from Parklands Avenue. Residents of High View, West View, South View, Lindop - all have difficulties coming on to the Rugby Road at peak times now. Increased traffic would exacerbate the problem. When this traffic comes to the roundabout at Comptons, even if it is made larger, the sheer volume would cause enormous problems (there have been three accidents in the last two months). This traffic would largely go left to access the A46 or right to the Fosse Way - all going over a small bridge which cannot take the present volume, and this area frequently floods.
2. If this building were to go ahead, Cubbington would lose its special rural identity and just be part of Leamington.
3. The wildlife in this area is special - badgers, foxes, barn owls, green wood peckers, sparrow hawks, kestrels, occasional buzzards, herons as well as the usual garden birds, sky larks soaring overhead - unforgettable - is this to be a thing of the past?
4. Flooding will inevitable occur more often. The floods have been a disaster particularly in New Street, Ladycroft, Knightley Close etc. This was and is usually caused by water draining from the fields, rivers overloading. Therefore the problem will be much worse.

I do not feel the village of Cubbington can support the influx of extra people. We have enough parking problems at the shops and schools at the present, and the extra traffic, the roads are only village roads and cannot support this. Also the schools couldn't take the extra influx of children. Apart from this the development would spoil some of the greenbelt land.

We object to the development because of the unsuitability of the site and the strain on the infrastructure it will cause.

This development would cause a great increase in traffic, therefore leading to more pollution and accidents. Schools and doctors are already under pressure. The flooding problems with Cubbington Village are well documented.

- Erosion of greenbelt - unacceptable, totally
- Threat to wildlife - destruction of its environment - tragic
- Real threat of flooding - already a problem, remember 2007
- Unacceptable increase in traffic. Windmill Hill/ Rugby Road already an accident black spot. Already deaths on Rugby Road - very heavy traffic makes trying to cross at present very dangerous at peak times: Saturday a.m. shoppers going to town - a case of 'the quick and the dead'!
- Pressure on local schools
- Pressure on local doctors surgery
- This proposal poses an unacceptable level of disruption to the areas of Cubbington and Lillington, an area with rural roads which are not adequate to cope with such an influx of new users; being already congested with existing traffic levels they are just not suitable.
- Loss of fertile land, regularly farmed
- Outstanding, beautiful are that supports all manner of birds, natural wildlife, plants and trees. This must be preserved for future generations of Cubbington and Lillington residents. It would be a tragedy to let this proposal go ahead.
- We don't want to lose our village!

This labour government and council seem hell bent on destroying our wonderful countryside, whom thousands of people from overseas come to enjoy every year.

The drainage problem which has been experienced recently makes it known only too wall that unless works proposed includes action to prevent any further problem in and around Cubbington.

Object strongly. Increase in traffic will cause more accidents and produce more pollution. Doctors' surgeries are already full to capacity. There is insufficient parking for shops in Queen Street and opposite the Rugby Tavern to cater for huge additional numbers of residents. Also existing schools could not cater for them. The footpath across the fields is used heavily and wildlife must be protected.

Object

A development of the size and nature of that proposed would destroy the village community of Cubbington and place significant strain on an already inadequate infrastructure of schools, roads and leisure facilities. The area also suffers from flooding and such a development can only impart negatively on the village's ability to cope with adverse weather conditions.

Object

Very negative impact on Cubbington and surrounding area due to:
i. Traffic on the Welsh Road and Windmill Hill would increase in volume. The Welsh Road is already quite dangerous and Windmill Hill is congested
ii. Flooding Risk
iii. Loss of village boundary between Cubbington and Lillington will severely detract from village life and the local community
iv. Environment - loss of greenbelt and well used open space.

I object most strongly:
1. The greenbelt between Lillington and Cubbington must be protected otherwise Leamington will sprawl outwards and village life will be destroyed.
2. Once you build on this greenbelt there will be no reason not to build on more land - for example around the Thwaites factory.
3. There is bad flooding already in Cubbington, putting more tarmac on the hillside above these areas can only make the flooding worse.
4. The existing road network is already very busy. It cannot support all these extra houses. There are already many accidents at the top of Windmill Hill and crossing Rugby Road to the shops is difficult and dangerous
5. There will be too much pressure on local schools and doctors.

Impact on Cubbington village and area highly negative. Increased traffic and pressures on schools etc. Reduction in greenbelt and inappropriate location for major development.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
1. It will spoil the village life
2. It will increase the possibility of flooding
3. It will make the traffic problems in the village worse
4. It will make the greenbelt no longer green.

I object to the plans to develop the greenbelt between Lillington and Cubbington. Cubbington maintains its village way of life, which I'm sure would be lost if we joined with Lillington. Also the roads are very busy with today's traffic without adding more.
I enjoy walking over the fields, blackberrying and a friendly short cut to the Rugby Tavern and shops, please don't spoil this for Cubbington.

We do not nee the amount of houses and to link up with Lillington, and so on to Leamington Spa.

Have you thought of the traffic, road and the upset to the village and the shops, school and it goes on and on.

We as the old Cubbington villagers do not want to see the end of village life.

Representations from Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council including responses to the alternative sites and in addition a revised alternative option in response to the Warwick District Preferred Options. Full details of the Parish Council's Revised Alternative Option can be read in the paper version that WDC Planning hold at Council Offices. It may also be found on Bishop's Tachbrook's website:
http://www.bishopstachbrook.com/PDF's/100408_BishTachPC_CSPrefOpt_AltOpt[1].pdf

Analysis of the site submissions indicates that there could be deposits of sand and gravel under three of the sites put forward for potential housing development:

Site 2
Site 3
Site 6

Part of site 4 lies within a sand and gravel Minerals Safeguarding Area as it is directly adjacent to an area of sand and gravel resource. There may therefore be an opportunity for the adjacent sand and gravel resource to be worked in the future. Plans of the above site showing sand and gravel resource areas ( and subsequent Minerals Safeguarding Areas) are also attached for your information.

It must also be noted that part of the area identified under Site 6 has been submitted as a potential sand and gravel site for possible allocation in the Minerals Core Strategy. The site submission (Site 20 - Land South of Baginton) can be viewed on pages 142 - 144 of the Minerals Core Strategy Revised Spatial Options consultation document ( www.warwickshire.gov.uk/mineralscorestrategy ). We are still in the process of assessing the sites and the information submitted and no decisions have been made at this stage. However, if any of the above sites, particularly Site 6, are taken forward as a preferred option for housing within the Warwick District Council Core Strategy, we would request that we are notified and consulted at all stages as the Local Development Framework progresses.

In order to prevent the sterilisation of proven resources of sand and gravel by non mineral development, we would request that all sites that appear to lie on deposits of sand and gravel area examined further in order to indentify the amount of deposit under the land. If it is apparent that there are large deposits, the area should be safeguarded, and as much mineral extracted as economically viable prior to any development taking place. Minerals safeguarding is not a method whereby development can be stopped, but simply a way of ensuring that resources are used sensibly and sustainably, as set out in the objectives of Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1). It may be necessary to engage with the minerals industry at an early stage to examine whether mineral operations are required prior to development.

We have undertaken a Minerals Safeguarding exercise with the British Geological Survey which identified minerals resources in the county. The safeguarding maps define where we would need to be consulted i.e. in Mineral Safeguarded Areas (MSAs)/Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) (MSAs and MCAs share the same boundaries) and these areas have been included on the site plans. The study is available to download at www.warwickshire.gov.uk/mineralscorestrategy and we will be supplying you with this information in GIS format shortly. When the Minerals LDF is adopted we expect that these MSA/MCA areas will be covered in a safeguarding policy. We would like to see a policy reference in the Warwick District Core Strategy to minerals safeguarding to draw attention to developers of the need to take this issue into account when submitting planning applications.

We have not yet determined all of the thresholds whereby sites need to be flagged up but it should include most of the larger sites such as strategic housing (and employment) sites. Where there are large scale allocations or planning applications within MSAs/MCAs (over a threshold of possibly 1ha) a mineral resource survey would need to be undertaken and if this reveals that economic deposits exist then the material should be extracted prior to the development and used on site during construction. This can help to reduce carbon emissions substantially if sand and gravel does not have to be transported long distances. In addition if resources are sterilised by non-mineral development it means that more sand and gravel is required from new and existing quarries. We note that sand and gravel extraction was undertaken prior to housing development on the land to the south west of Warwick, which was identified as a Preferred Area for sand and gravel extraction in our 1995 Minerals Local Plan.

It may be that you have considered this issue in dealings with potential developers. However, as the Core Strategy progresses, I would request that the issue of Mineral Safeguarding is incorporated into a policy within the Core Strategy in line with our previous consultation responses, to prevent it from being dealt with on an ad hoc 'site-by-site' basis.

Site 1 and 1b

Part of the site is Green Belt and potential grade 3 farmland whilst the other part is an existing mixed use development comprising business and recreational use. The site falls within the Arden Parklands and there is strong mature tree corridor to Glasshouse Lane with internal hedgerows visible which currently defines the urban edge. The eastern site is bounded by the A46 so there will need to be a substantial landscape buffer between the development and the road. The development will remove a local amenity - i.e. the sports.

Site 2

Part of the site is located on grade 2 and 3 farmland. The development would fall within Dunsmore Plateau Fringe. There is a strong vegetation corridor along the railway line, which currently defines the urban edge. There is good vegetation cover to the eastern boundary and good internal hedged field boundaries. A landscape buffer will be necessary between the proposed development and the railway and wetland corridors and farmland to the east and south.

Site 3

This site is on Green Belt and Grade 3 farmland with a small fragment of Grade 2 farmland affected on the southern boundary. The development would fall within Dunsmore Plateau Farmlands and Plateau Fringe. Although Lillington and Cubbington are already physically connected the proposed site is on higher ground that the surrounding area so there will be visual impact issues, particularly with the scale of development proposed. A landscape buffer would be needed to both break up the scale and screen the development from the school and its playing fields and from the adjacent farm and its associated buildings.

Site 4

Green Belt, Grade 3 farmland. The development would fall within the Arden Parklands. At present the village of Leek Wootton has a separate identity, this is reinforced by the 'green wedge' of farmland mature trees between the village and the built edge of Warwick. Development of this land will have an adverse impact upon this identity and the village will become a continuation of the urban edge of Warwick. There will be high adverse visual impact from main roads, neighbouring properties and public footpaths. Some of the development is proposed on higher ground, this will widen the potential visual envelope.

Site 5

Hurst Farm is within the Green Belt and Arden Parklands. The proposed site abuts farmland on the majority of its boundaries. This development would take out Grade 2 farmland, some with field ponds. There may be potential ussues regarding the proximity to the flood zone. Roughknowles Wood is on higher ground so there will be potential visual issues on land adjacent to the woodland. the site is is close proximity to Kenilworth and Gibbet Hill.

Site 6

Green Belt and potential flood zone issues. Dunsmore Parklands. Development on this scale would destroy the identity of the village of Baginton. The village would merge with Finham, the urban edge of Coventry. The development area appears to take in the Conservation Area, Lunt Roman Fort, the golf course, garden nurseries, sewage works and landfill?