To allow the development of Glebe farm would mean that Cubbington which at present is a very pleasant village to live in would be gained to Leamington Spa and will become part of another sprawling housing estate covering a substantial greenbelt area. To build on what is at present open land would exacerbate the danger of flooding in the village. The present position in this regard is bad enough as we have seen in the past two years without adding to it. Another problem would be the enormous increase in traffic using the Leftchurch Road, Windmill Hill and Rugby Road. The small roundabout at the top of Windmill Hill/ Rugby Road is already the scene of considerable hold ups and in the event of this scheme coming in there is no doubt that serious traffic jams would result especially during rush hour, with an increase chance of accidents occurring.

We strongly oppose the proposed development of the greenbelt between Lillington and Cubbington for the following reasons:

Cubbington Village is at continuous risk of flooding and no practical steps have been taken to alleviate this since the serious floods of 2007. Drainage for existing houses is already inadequate and further building would make the problem considerably worse.

Traffic on the Welsh Road and Windmill Hill is already heavy at certain times of the day, and the roundabout at the top of Windmill Hill is notorious for accidents. The increased traffic the new development would bring would increase the hazards, as well as making life intolerable for all Cubbington residents.

The Proposal is self evidently environmentally unsound. The loss of habitat would have a devastating effect on wildlife.

Cubbington is a village with a distinctive character and a strong sense of community. This would be lost with the new development and the village would become part of an amorphous urban sprawl.

If the proposal were to go ahead, there would undoubtedly be pressure for further development, and the problems would be further exacerbated.

The value of property in Cubbington, already decreased considerably since the floods, would plummet still further, with no compensation for residents.

Incidentally, why are we not told who owns the land in question? Are they ashamed of what is proposed? Do they not care about the welfare and quality of life of residents of Cubbington and Lillington?

Living in the delightful village of Cubbington, I feel it would be disastrous to lose the village life and so much wonderful countryside.
A green belt is decided upon for a reason and for a whole estate of multiple new properties to be contemplated, it makes a mockery of deciding on green belts.

Not only will the natural beauty/popular walking in the area be affected:
* The wildlife will suffer
* The land, prone to flooding now, will increase the flooding risks further with more building
* Traffic will increase and with it more potential accidents, of which there are plenty already
* Schools would feel the pressure
* Cubbington (and Lillington) will lose its identity, to all extent and purposes turning Leamington Spa into one sprawling metropolis

PLEASE DON'T BOW TO PRESSURE and stand up for Cubbington (& Lillington) saving the area

NOT CONVINCED THERE IS A NEED FOR THE HOUSING AS DETAILED IN THE CORE STRATEGY.

THE GREEN BELT BETWEEN LILLINGTON & CUBBINGTON MUST BE PROTECTED TO PREVENT THE UNRESTRICTED SPRAWL OF THE LARGE BUILT UP AREA OF LEAMINGTON. IT SAFEGUARDS THE COUNTRYSIDE FROM ENCROACHMENT AND MAINTAINS THE 2 DICTINCT COMMUNITIES. IF NOT PROTECTED, VILLAGE LIFE AS ENJOYED AT THE MOMENT WILL BE LOST FOREVER.

PRESSURE WILL INEVITABLY ARISE TO EXTEND THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE CLEARLY DEFINED BOUNDARYOF THE WELSH ROAD AND INTO THE GREEN BELT AROUND THWAITES FACTORY.

THE IMPERVIOUS HEAVY CLAY SUBSOIL CAUSES THE SITE TO BE PRONE TO FLOODING-BUILDING ON THIS LAND WOULD WORSEN THE EXISTING VILLAGE FLOODING PROBLEM.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND CUBBINGTON IS UNDER CONSIDERABLE STRAIN AS IT IS . THOUSANDS OF NEW HOUSES WOULD CREATE INTENSIVE AND UNACCEPTABLE PRESSURE ON ALL CURRENT SERVICES EG DOCTORS, SCHOOLS ETC. THOUSANDS OF MORE HOUSES MEANS CONSIDERABLY MORE TRAFFIC AND DISRUPTION, LEADING TO MORE ACCIDENTS AND MORE DELAYS.

DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON ALL WILDLIFE AND THE LOSS OF CONSIDERABLE AMENITIES.

Support - if building on this 'alternative site' option results in less housing development in the land to lower Heathcote Farm, south of Harbury Lane, Land at Europa Way, Land at Woodside Farm then we are in favour of this development.

I object to this proposed development on the following grounds:
Flood risk.
As a New Street resident I am concerned for the long term risk to my home of flooding. The June 2007 flood resulted in over 3ft of water outside my home in New Street and 1ft of flood water in my house. The result was I, and my family, lost many of our possessions and had to be evacuated for 6 months. This flood was the result of not only poorly maintained flood defenses but also the incapacity of the land to take the quantity of rain that fell. Thousands of new houses and the resultant concreting over of fields will only worsen this situation. The soil on those fields is heavy clay already causing the surface run-off to flood properties on the boundary of the site.
Protecting our green space/belt.
Protecting this area of green belt should be a priority. There are other non-green belt designated sites which should be considered in advance of Glebe Farm.
The wildlife that lives in this setting would be lost as well as the 'breathing space' that is enjoyed by so many.
Protecting village living
Cubbington Village is a distinct and separate community, enjoying access to countryside walks. The addition of thousands of new houses would put considerable strain on already stretched and problematic road networks (at peak times).
Risk of continued sprawl
Development of the Glebe Farm area could potentially open up further development leading to sprawl beyond the Thwaites site. Adding further to traffic congestion, loosing wildlife and increasing flooding risk.
Traffic congestion
Such a large scale development would significantly increase cross town traffic, all major food retailers and employment is based south of the town. Not only with the north Leamington roads be significantly more congested but the already creaking river crossings would be detrimentally impacted.

The development of Glebe Farm would put a huge strain on resources such as schools and services. The traffic flow up Windmill Hill would be horrendous. The risk of flooding would increase dramatically once the land is built on and this is already a big problem in Cubbington. Cubbington is a village and should be preserved as such and the land between Cubbington and Lillington is well used in its current format. We need to preserve the countryside and NOT build more housing.

Our priorities relate to the canal corridor and land and development within and immediately adjacent to the corridor. With any type of development British Waterways would require development to not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment, detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways, prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. The waterways can be used as tools in place making and place shaping, and contribute to the creation of sustainable communities. British Waterways would seek for any development to relate appropriately to the waterway and optimise the benefits such a location can generate for all parts of the community.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed alternative sites consultation for the future growth of Warwick District. Warwickshire Wildlife Trust has reviewed the alternative options, with regards to the potential ecological and environmental implications, and would like to make the following comments:

Ecological Data Provision
The Trust would like to outline the necessity of using up-to-date ecological and environmental information, to inform strategic site selection from the outset. Whilst the purpose of this consultation paper is to aid the site selection process for the sustainable growth of Warwick District; questions are raised as to how truly sustainable growth can be delivered, when there is inadequate supporting ecological information to indicate the environmental benefits or constraints of each growth option. This is problematic in two ways:

Primarily, the presence of designated wildlife sites and/or protected species has the capacity to shape the development and influence the overall developable area of the strategic site. Identifying the ecological assets of each growth option will therefore be essential to convey confidence that the strategic site can deliver the required development during the decision making process.

Secondly: the Local Authority will need to demonstrate that decisions on strategic site selection are the most appropriate considered against the reasonable alternatives*. This cannot be achieved if the environmental constraints and opportunities of each growth option have not been available to inform which is likely to be the most appropriate alternative from the environmental perspective.

Initial survey work for the original proposed sites has been undertaken by the Habitat Biodiversity Audit (HBA) and was available for comment by the public during the Preferred Option consultation. It is therefore unclear why this information has not been forthcoming for the alternative sites and available for comment within this consultation period. The Trust subsequently advocates that, at the very least, the HBA habitat assessment is extended to include the proposed alternative sites prior to site selection. Furthermore, we contend that this initial assessment is also supported by; a data search of protected species for each site and the additional survey work that has been recommended within the Warwick District Habitat Assessment (such as potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS) criteria assessments). The Trust would be happy to comment on any data that came forward and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the constraints or opportunities of each site with yourselves or prospective developers.

Habitat Regulations Assessment
It is possible that the future growth of the district may require the need to conduct a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) in accordance with regulation 85 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations (Amended 2007). The need for this assessment is to ensure that any proposed growth strategy will not have a detrimental impact on a Natura 2000 site (i.e SAC, SPA or Ramsar site). Whist the nearest European site is situated in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough, the future growth of Warwick District may have implications on European sites stretching much further, through increases in tourism, water abstraction or through the increased production of carbon emissions. To evaluate if Warwick District needs to undertake a full HRA, the Trust advises that a HRA scoping assessment is undertaken. This will outline if any aspects of the Core Strategy are likely to impact on European sites and therefore require a full HRA. As the HRA should ideally be an essential aspect of the evidence base to inform spatial growth, it is strongly recommended that the assessment is undertaken at the first possible opportunity, encompassing all original and alterative strategic sites, to ensure that the desired growth options do not impact on a European site.

Green Infrastructure
All development parcels must take into consideration the need to have sufficient space to not only accommodate grey infrastructure, but also to allow sufficient provision for the necessary buffering of existing biodiversity assets and make a contribution towards green infrastructure (GI). Within the larger sustainable urban extensions, the Trust recommends that green infrastructure provision should make up at least 40% of the developable area in line with government best practice**, however this will largely depend on the ecological assets of each site and their connectivity to wider GI objectives.

The Trust advises Warwick District to take a strategic approach to GI provision within each of the development parcels. Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement through habitat buffering, restoration and creation, in line with LBAP objectives, should be seized wherever possible, but these should also be considered in unison with the social and economic requirements of the site. For example, biodiversity enhancements may be linked to SUDS or public open space or contribute to flood alleviation. This multifunctional use of GI will best be informed through the production of the GI strategy, which should be a key consideration in the site selection process.

Site Specific
Whist it is difficult to provide meaningful comments on the alternative sites until further ecological environmental data is available, the Trust would like to provide our initial thoughts on the some of the obvious constraints and opportunities, each development parcel presents.

Site 3 - Glebe Farm, Cubbington
This site forms part of the original proposed site known as Land between Lillington/ Cubbington, however the Trust welcomes that the alternative option now does not include the watercourse to the east of the site. The alternative site consists of predominantly amenity grassland with a connected framework of ponds, hedgerows and mature trees throughout. The ecological constraints to this site are therefore largely focussed around the presence of protected species, such as bats and great crested newts (GCN), within these features. Further protected species survey work must be forthcoming to inform how any required mitigation strategies may influence the developable area. These measures could be integral to the design of GI provision throughout the site and should be explored once sufficient data is available.

Object

The reason we chose to live in Exmoor Drive was its proximity to the greenbelt and open spaces, this proposal would change this forever.

Living in Exmoor Drive we would be opposite possible access points to any development, thus having to live with congestion and pollution.

My mother lives in Cubbington Village and was flooded out of her home for 5 months. Any development in this area is likely to increase the dangers to Cubbington and to any new buildings in the proposed area of development.

Having been badly flooded ay my home (I had to move out whilst repairs were carried out), I am VERY concerned about building on the above land. The heavy clay soil will cause problems and probable flooding.

Drainage/ water pipes still need updating, they are not adequate for the village and surroundings - they are already on overload since new houses built.

I anticipate there will be more traffic in the area, rush hour times are already difficult especially around the Windmill Hill area. The roundabout has accidents there.

Also school traffic is heavy at the beginning/ end of the day with children crossing and the parking for parents is already congested.

There will probably be a need for extra school places at both village schools.

An extra demand on doctor's surgery on Cubbington Road - already overloaded.

A need for better public transport.

A threat to village life, lose its identity - Cubbington would become more of an estate, Cubbington and Leamington are two separate communities.

Loss of greenbelt between Lillington and Cubbington.

Threat to local wildlife and countryside footpaths. The surrounding countryside is very popular and people come to walk here and enjoy the unspoilt beauty.

I feel the road infrastructure around Mason Avenue and Buckley Road is not good enough to sustain a large housing project. I know this is not the only route into Leamington but Cubbington Road is also very busy at peak times.

Building on greenbelt land on the scale suggested will have a bad impact on local community and environment. The area is already subjected to flooding. Access by existing roads will cause chaos. Already experiencing long delays at peaks time along the Rugby Road and the island is dangerous. Road surfaces are breaking up already and the extra traffic will see further deterioration.

Strongly object due to the affect it would have on schools and roads. These roads cannot take the traffic it has now. Large lorries are using these roads now due to sat nav directions.

Due to traffic problems that would be caused. The existing bad drainage infrastructure - which has caused flooding and who knows how many (present) dwellings are on soakaways, one logically should put these ideas in the grey-green bins - red boxes - white bags.

I object on the grounds of:

Too much traffic in Parklands Avenue if development goes ahead.

Wildlife on the farm will be interfered with.

Too many extra children and not enough schools in the area.

Cubbington and Lillington will lose its village identity.

Most large stores like supermarkets are on the south side of town so there will be an increase of traffic through the North side of the town.

I object on the grounds of:

Traffic on Parklands Avenue and Cubbington Road.

The cul-de-sacs in Parklands Avenue are not made for the amount of cars that will be using the roads.

With the flooding in Cubbington it will get as worse as the 2007 floods. The development will make the situation intolerable.

This is a green belt area, we do not need to lose our village and join up with others. It would result in choas on the roads and noise.

The area around Glebe farm to Parklands Avenue would cause our identity as a village to disappear. Also the extra housing in this area would overload the existing drains in this area. This would possibly result in further or more disastrous flooding that occurred in the village in recent years.

My main objection is based on the increased flooding risk that such a development would present to Cubbington Village. The run-off from the proposed new estate would significantly heighten the risk of flooding the village below. Does the council not have a responsibility to protect greenbelt land?

Leamington Spa already has a large number of empty units where developers have failed to find buyers/ tenants for new houses/ flats across the town (e.g. Livery Street). Should the focus not be on filling existing housing before building more?

I also agree with the argument that the proposed new development will put increased pressure on schools in the area that are already oversubscribed.

Many people are attracted to Cubbington because it is on the outskirts of the town, it is relatively quiet and rural. Such a large new housing estate we de-nature the area and affect the quality of life of existing residents who had specifically chosen village life over centre of town living.

This development must not be allowed to happen. The proposed site has very undulating ground, heavy clay soil which soaks up excess water. If put under concrete water will have nowhere to go but down into Offchurch Road, Ladycroft etc and this would add to the fear of extra flooding. The traffic would be a problem its very busy now on Offchurch road when Thwaites staff use it morning and night. We haven't the schools or doctors to cope.

We would lose our village identity and greenbelt and be joined to Lillington.

I strongly object to the proposed link of new houses between Lillington and Cubbington at Glebe Farm.

Having been flooded out of my property for several months in 2007 as a result of inadequate drainage amongst other reasons in Cubbington Village I fail to understand the reasoning of the proposal to build even more houses to add to the burden. We are still awaiting answers to this problem so before anything else is considered, resolve the flooding problem.

We also have to contend with much heavier traffic which now seems to have rerouted down Windmill Hill and through Offchurch.

Solve one problem before you create another one.

Questionnaire response.

You know the reasons!! For the good of the local community do not allow this to happen!!

I have lived in Cubbington all my life born at 2 Church Terrace, Cubbington. My comments are brief, where I live now, opposite a playing field I have noticed since the New houses have been built that we have far more water in the field now. Before it was minimal, because the water where the Waterworks are was a grass area and soaked up a lot of water. I am telling you this as an example. Also I know lots of the people living in New St and Ladycroft and as you are aware, they have experienced terrible flooding in recent years. Hence the objection to having hundreds of more houses being built on land which is subject to this. It will not be a village any more if this scheme goes ahead. It seems that no land is sacred these days from 'building' suggestions. I strongly object to this scheme. I remember where Ladycroft is now as a playing field and look what's happened since houses etc have been built in that area!! There has always been flooding at Offchurch as well for many years.

Brownfield sites and derelict factories in towns could be developed. Local amenities cannot sustain 2,000 more houses. Poor highway access off Parklands. Will increase flooding in Cubbington. Traffic congested at Windmill Hill. Very detrimental to local wildlife. Extra strain on fire and police services and Warwick Hospital.

The result will be more urban sprawl with the loss of Cubbington village identity. The surrounding roads are already at capacity at certina times of the day.

Support this site as suitable for development.

Development infringes the Kenilworth Gap from Coventry.